Corporate and Cultural Services 28 January 2014
Joint Strategic Committee
Date: 6 February 2014
Time: 6:30pm or the conclusion of a simultaneous meeting of the Joint Strategic Committee and Joint Governance & Audit Committee starting at 6.00pm
Venue: Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Shoreham-by-Sea
Adur Cabinet: Councillors Neil Parkin (Leader), Julie Searle (Deputy Leader),
Pat Beresford, Keith Dollemore, Angus Dunn, Jim Funnell and David Simmons
Worthing Cabinet: Councillors Paul Yallop (Leader), Bryan Turner (Deputy Leader), Daniel Humphreys, Mary Lermitte, Clive Roberts and Tom Wye
Agenda
Part A
1. Declarations of Interest
Members and officers must declare any disclosable pecuniary interests in relation to any business on the agenda. Declarations should also be made at any stage such an interest becomes apparent during the meeting.
If in doubt contact the Legal or Democratic Services representative for this meeting.
2. Minutes
To approve the minutes of the Joint Strategic Committee meeting held 7 January 2014, copies of which have been previously circulated.
1 3. Public Question Time
To receive any questions from members of the public.
4. Items Raised Under Urgency Provisions
To consider any items the Chairman of the meeting considers to be urgent.
5. Joint Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Annual Investment Strategy 2014/15 to 2016/17 for Adur District Council and Worthing Borough Council
To consider a report from the Executive Head of Financial Services, a copy is attached as item 5.
6. West Sussex Joint Scrutiny Task and Finish Group – Flooding Review
To consider a report from the Chief Executive, a copy is attached as item 6.
7. West Sussex Local Flood Risk Management Strategy
To consider a report from the Strategic Director (AG), a copy is attached as item 7.
8. Revised Housing Allocation Policies
To consider a report from the Executive Head of Housing, Health & Community Safety, a copy is attached as item 8.
9. Worthing – Community infrastructure Levy (CIL) Draft Charging Schedule and Draft Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)
To consider a report from the Executive Head of Planning, Regeneration and Wellbeing, a copy is attached as item 9.
10. Notice of Motion to WBC (17 Dec) report to JSC - Mental Health
To consider a report from the Executive Head of Planning, Regeneration and Wellbeing, a copy is attached as item 10.
11. Options for the River Adur Internal Drainage District
To consider a report from the Strategic Director (AG), a copy is attached as item 11.
2
12. Adur Homes Decent Homes Work Programme 2014/15
To consider a report from the Head of Adur Homes, a copy is attached as item 12.
13. Use of Compulsory Purchase Order relating to the Completion of Shoreham Beach Boardwalk
To consider a report from the Executive Head of Planning, Regeneration and Wellbeing, a copy is attached as item 13.
14. Exclusion of the Press and Public
In the opinion of the Proper Officer the press and public should be excluded from the meeting for consideration of the following items. Therefore the meeting is asked to consider passing the following resolution:
'that under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting from the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the paragraph of Part 3 of Schedule 12 A to the Act indicated against the item'.
Part B - Not for Publication – Exempt Information Reports
15. Sale of Grafton Site
To consider a report from the Strategic Director (AG), a copy is attached as item 15.
For Democratic Services enquiries For Legal Services enquiries relating relating to this meeting please contact: to this meeting please contact:
Neil Terry Susan Sale Senior Democratic Services Officer Solicitor to the Council 01903 221073 01903 221119 [email protected] [email protected]
The agenda and reports are available on the Councils website, please visit www.adur-worthing.gov.uk
3
4
Joint Strategic Committee 6th February, 2014
Agenda Item No: 5 Joint Governance and Audit th 20 March, 2014 Agenda Item No: xx Ward: All
TITLE: Joint Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Annual Investment Strategy 2014/15 to 2016/17 Adur District Council and Worthing Borough Council
REPORT BY: Sarah Gobey, Executive Head (Financial Services)
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s Code of Practice for Treasury Management in Public Services (the “CIPFA TM Code”) requires local authorities to determine before the start of the financial year the Treasury Management Strategy Statement (TMSS) and Annual Investment Strategy (AIS).Together these elements prescribe the parameters within which treasury management shall operate, which is defined by CIPFA as:
“the management of the organisation’s investments and cash flows, its banking, money market and capital market transactions; the effective control of the risks associated with those activities; and the pursuit of optimum performance consistent with those risks.”
1.2 In compiling the TMSS and AIS The Local Government Act 2003 (the Act) and supporting regulations also require the Councils to ‘have regard to’ the CIPFA Prudential Code and the CIPFA Treasury Management Code of Practice to set Prudential and Treasury Indicators for the next three years. This is to ensure that the Councils’ capital investment plans are affordable, prudent and sustainable.
1.3 Consequently, this report fulfils the requirements under the TM Code to present the TMSS and AIS before the start of the new financial year, including the Prudential Indicators, for the next three years 2014/15-2016/17.
1.4 The report also considers the expected treasury position, the proposed strategy for borrowing, and the prospects for interest rates in the prevailing economic conditions, all of which together set the context in which treasury management decisions will be taken.
1.5 Each Council is responsible for its own treasury management decisions and activity. No treasury management activity is without risk. The successful identification, monitoring and control of risk is an important and integral element of treasury management activities. Hence, these considerations have been incorporated within the strategies presented in this report. The main risks to the Councils’ treasury management activities are:
R10bb Joint Treasury M’ment Strategy St’ment 1 Joint Strategic Committee 06.02.14 Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Governance & Audit 20.03.14 Agenda Item No: xx 5
1.0 BACKGROUND
• Liquidity Risk (Inadequate cash resources)
• Market or Interest Rate Risk (Fluctuations in interest rate levels)
• Inflation Risk (Exposure to inflation)
• Credit and Counterparty Risk (Security of Investments)
• Refinancing Risk (Impact of debt maturing in future years)
• Legal and Regulatory Risk
1.6 In managing these risks consideration has been given to the impact of the Councils’ Revenue Budget and Capital Programme on the Balance Sheet position, the current Treasury position projected forward (Appendix A), the outlook for interest rates (Section 3), and the Prudential Indicators & Limits for borrowing.
1.7 To summarise, the purpose of this TMSS and AIS report is to:
• Approve the Proposed Treasury Management Strategy for 2014/15-2016/17 (Borrowing - Section 4, and Debt Rescheduling - Section 5)
• Approve the Joint Annual Investment Policy & Strategy (Section 6)
• Approve the Prudential Indicators for 2014/15-2016/17 (Appendix B)
• Approve the Minimum Revenue Provisions (MRP) Statement for 2014/15 (Section 8)
• Approve the use of Specified and Non-Specified Investments 2014/15 (Appendix C)
• Note The scheme of delegations (Appendix D)
• Note any other matters of significance (Section 11)
2.0 BALANCE SHEET AND TREASURY POSITION
2.1 The Councils’ expected treasury portfolio at 31 March 2014, with forward projections, is summarised below. The Table compares the underlying need to borrow for Capital purposes (the Capital Financing Requirement, or CFR) with the projected external debt (the treasury management operations) highlighting any over or under borrowing position for capital investment purposes. For Adur, the comparison is expanded to show the General Fund and Housing Revenue Account (HRA) elements.
R10bb Joint Treasury M’ment Strategy St’ment 2 Joint Strategic Committee 06.02.14 Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Governance & Audit 20.03.14 Agenda Item No: xx 6 2.0 BALANCE SHEET AND TREASURY POSITION
2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Adur District Council Estimate Revised Estimate Estimate Estimate £m £m £m £m £m Capital Financing Requirement (CFR)
General Fund 12.892 14.076 15.108 15.361 16.713 Housing Revenue A/c 66.078 65.562 63.994 63.284 62.655 Total CFR 78.970 79.638 79.102 78.645 79.368 Current Actual Debt General Fund (16.490) (13.185) (12.969) (12.969) (12.968) Housing Revenue A/c (65.818) (64.982) (62.993) (61.287) (59.581) Actual Debt Projected (82.308) (78.167) (75.962) (74.255) (72.549) Forward (Appx A) (Over)/Under Borrowing General Fund (3.600) 0.891 2.139 2.392 3.744 Housing Revenue A/c 0.260 0.580 1.001 1.997 3.074 Total (Over)/Under Borrowing Based on (3.340) 1.471 3.140 4.390 6.819 Actual Debt projected forward Cumulative maximum planned Borrowing per - - (1.916) (3.913) (7.088) CIP Projected (Over) Under Borrowing Represented (3.340) 1.471 1.224 0.477 (0.269) by: General Fund 0.891 0.371 (0.366) (1.101) HRA 0.580 0.853 0.843 0.832
2.2 For Adur Council there is an increasing under borrowed position for both General Fund and HRA based on the on actual debt at 31 March 2014 projected forward (i.e. assuming no new borrowing).
2.3 If the Council was to undertake new borrowing at the level indicated by the capital programme, then the General Fund would move to an over borrowed position in 2015/16, while the HRA remains under borrowed in each year. To manage the General Fund position, the borrowing strategy will be only to borrow up to the maximum of the CFR, using “internal borrowing” (surplus cash) to fund the difference.
2.4 Worthing Council does not have a Housing Revenue Account, and so the figures below relate entirely to the General Fund. For all years Worthing is under borrowed. This is due to the debt being of short-term durations of 1-5 years, while the CFR takes longer to write down as MRP is provided for over the life of the assets acquired, which is as much as 60 years for the most significant element of borrowing for the new leisure facilities.
R10bb Joint Treasury M’ment Strategy St’ment 3 Joint Strategic Committee 06.02.14 Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Governance & Audit 20.03.14 Agenda Item No: xx 7 2.0 BALANCE SHEET AND TREASURY POSITION
2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Worthing Borough Estimate Revised Estimate Estimate Estimate Council £m £m £m £m £m General Fund CFR 26.405 25.216 27.880 27.430 28.778 Actual Debt Projected (10.622) (14.713) (0.079) (0.041) (0.023) Forward (Appx A) Total (Over)/Under Borrowing Based on 15.783 10.503 27.801 27.389 28.755 Actual Debt projected forward 1. Cumulative Planned - - (3.848) (4.796) (7.594) Borrowing per CIP 2. Refinancing of Existing - - (6.549) (1.548) - Debt Projected (Over) Under 15.783 10.503 17.404 21.045 21.161 Borrowing
2.5 In practice, the actual need to borrow is determined by the relative CFR components and usable balances and reserves shown in the Balance Sheet. The usable balances and reserves underpin the cash resources available for investment, and therefore the Councils’ net indebtedness, alongside consideration of interest rates, will influence any decision to borrow. The expected net indebtedness (i.e. gross borrowing less gross investments) of both Councils for 2014-2017, based on the current portfolio projected forward, is shown at Appendix A.
2.6 The Councils aim to ensure that the net indebtedness does not exceed the CFR for the current year and following two years, in keeping with the requirements of the Prudential Code for Local Authority Borrowing. Additionally, it is not the Councils’ policy to hold gross debt above the level of CFR unless for temporary purposes (e.g. for borrowing in advance of need to take advantage of low interest rates which is permitted under the Code).
3.0 OUTLOOK FOR INTEREST RATES AND THE ECONOMY
Capita Asset Services’ Revised Interest Rate Forecast
3.1 The Councils have appointed Capita Asset Services as treasury advisor and part of the service is to assist the Councils to formulate a view on interest rates. The following table gives a “snapshot” of the central view (at December 2013), and is followed by Capita’s summary of the economic position.
R10bb Joint Treasury M’ment Strategy St’ment 4 Joint Strategic Committee 06.02.14 Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Governance & Audit 20.03.14 Agenda Item No: xx 8
3.0 OUTLOOK FOR INTEREST RATES AND THE ECONOMY
THE UK ECONOMY
Economic growth
3.2 Until 2013, the economic recovery in the UK since 2008 had been the worst and slowest recovery in recent history. However, growth strongly rebounded in 2013 - quarter 1 (+0.3%), 2 (+0.7%) and 3 (+0.8%), to surpass all expectations as all three main sectors, services, manufacturing and construction contributed to this strong upturn. The Bank of England has, therefore, upgraded growth forecasts in the August and November quarterly Inflation Reports for 2013 from 1.2% to 1.6% and for 2014 from 1.7% to 2.8%, (2015 unchanged at 2.3%). The November Report stated that:-
“In the United Kingdom, recovery has finally taken hold. The economy is growing robustly as lifting uncertainty and thawing credit conditions start to unlock pent-up demand. But significant headwinds — both at home and abroad — remain, and there is a long way to go before the aftermath of the financial crisis has cleared and economic conditions normalise. That underpins the MPC’s intention to maintain the exceptionally stimulative stance of monetary policy until there has been a substantial reduction in the degree of economic slack. The pace at which that slack is eroded, and the durability of the recovery, will depend on the extent to which productivity picks up alongside demand. Productivity growth has risen in recent quarters, although unemployment has fallen by slightly more than expected on the back of strong output growth”.
3.3 However, growth is expected to be strong for the immediate future. One downside is that wage inflation continues to remain significantly below CPI inflation so disposable income and living standards are under pressure, although income tax cuts have ameliorated this to some extent. A rebalancing of the economy towards exports has started, but as 40% of UK exports go to the Eurozone, the difficulties in this area are likely to continue to dampen UK growth.
Forward guidance
3.4 The Bank of England also issued forward guidance with the August Inflation Report, which said that the Bank will not start to consider raising interest rates until the jobless rate (Labour Force Survey / International Labour Organisation (ILO) i.e. not the claimant count measure) has fallen to 7% or below. This would require the creation of about 750,000 jobs and was forecast to take three years. The UK unemployment rate currently stands at 2.5 million i.e. 7.7 % on the LFS / ILO measure.
3.5 The Bank's guidance is subject to three provisos, mainly around inflation; breaching any of them would sever the link between interest rates and unemployment levels. This actually makes forecasting Bank Rate much more complex given the lack of available reliable forecasts by economists over a three year plus horizon. The recession since 2007 was notable for how unemployment did not rise to the levels that would normally be expected in a major recession and the latest Inflation Report noted that productivity had sunk to 2005 levels. There has therefore been a significant level of retention of labour, which will mean that a significant amount of GDP growth can be accommodated without a major reduction in unemployment.
R10bb Joint Treasury M’ment Strategy St’ment 5 Joint Strategic Committee 06.02.14 Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Governance & Audit 20.03.14 Agenda Item No: xx 9
3.0 OUTLOOK FOR INTEREST RATES AND THE ECONOMY
THE UK ECONOMY
Forward guidance
3.6 The forecast in this report, for the Bank Rate not to start increasing until quarter 3 of 2016, is based on a slow reduction of unemployment, (in line with the Bank of England’s forecast), and contrary to the prevalent market view where rates are indicating that Bank Rate is expected to start going up in early 2015.
Credit conditions
3.7 While the Bank Rate has remained unchanged at 0.5% and quantitative easing has remained unchanged at £375bn in 2013, the Funding for Lending Scheme (FLS), aimed at encouraging banks to expand lending to small and medium size enterprises, has been extended. The FLS certainly seems to be having a positive effect in terms of encouraging house purchases (though levels are still far below the pre-crisis level) FLS is also due to be bolstered by the second phase of Help to Buy aimed to support purchasing of second hand properties, which is now due to start in earnest in January 2014.
3.8 While there have been concerns that these schemes are creating a bubble in the housing market, the housing market remains weak outside of London and the south- east, with a significant increase in house prices either being entirely absent or minimal. However, bank lending to small and medium enterprises continues to remain weak and inhibited by banks still repairing their balance sheets and anticipating tightening of regulatory requirements.
Inflation
3.9 Inflation has fallen from a peak of 3.1% in June 2013 to 2.2% in October. It is expected to fall back to reach the 2% target level within the Monetary Policy Committee’s two year time horizon.
AAA rating
3.10 The UK has lost its AAA rating from Fitch and Moody’s but that caused little market reaction.
Capita Asset Service’s Forward View
3.11 Economic forecasting remains difficult with so many external influences weighing on the UK. Major volatility in bond yields is likely to endure as investor fears and confidence ebb and flow between favouring more risky assets i.e. equities, and safer bonds.
3.12 There could well be volatility in gilt yields over the next year as financial markets await the long expected start of tapering of asset purchases by the Fed. The timing and degree of tapering could have a significant effect on both Treasury and gilt yields. Equally, at the time of writing, the political deadlock and infighting between Democrats and Republicans over the budget, and the raising of the debt limit, has only been kicked down the road, rather than resolved. Resolving these issues could have a significant effect on gilt yields during 2014.
R10bb Joint Treasury M’ment Strategy St’ment 6 Joint Strategic Committee 06.02.14 Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Governance & Audit 20.03.14 Agenda Item No: xx 10
3.0 OUTLOOK FOR INTEREST RATES AND THE ECONOMY
Capita Asset Service’s Forward View
3.13 The longer run trend is for gilt yields and PWLB rates to rise, due to the high volume of gilt issuance in the UK, and of bond issuance in other major western countries. Increasing investor confidence in economic recovery is also likely to compound this effect as a continuation of recovery will further encourage investors to switch back from bonds to equities.
3.14 The overall balance of risks to economic recovery in the UK is currently evenly weighted. However, only time will tell just how long this period of strong economic growth will last; it also remains exposed to vulnerabilities in a number of key areas.
Volatility Surrounding the Outlook
3.15 The interest rate forecasts in this report are based on an initial assumption that there will not be a major resurgence of the Eurozone (EZ) debt crisis, or a break-up of the EZ, but rather that there will be a managed, albeit painful and tortuous, resolution of the debt crisis where EZ institutions and governments eventually do what is necessary - but only when all else has been tried and failed. Under this assumed scenario, growth within the EZ will be tepid for the next couple of years and some EZ countries experiencing low or negative growth, will, over that time period, see a significant increase in total government debt to GDP ratios. There is a significant danger that these ratios could rise to the point where markets lose confidence in the financial viability of one, or more, countries.
3.16 However, it is impossible to forecast whether any individual country will lose such confidence, or when, and so precipitate a resurgence of the EZ debt crisis. While the European Central Bank (ECB) has adequate resources to manage a debt crisis in a small EZ country, if one, or more, of the large countries were to experience a major crisis of market confidence, this would present a serious challenge to the ECB and to EZ politicians.
3.17 The downside risks currently include:
h UK strong economic growth is currently very dependent on consumer spending and recovery in the housing market.
h A weak rebalancing of UK growth to exporting and business investment may cause a major weakening of overall economic growth beyond 2014.
h Weak growth or recession in the UK’s main trading partners - the EU and US, may depress economic recovery in the UK.
h There may be a prolonged political disagreement over the US Federal Budget and raising of the debt ceiling.
h A return to weak economic growth in the US, UK and China causing major disappointment in investor and market expectations.
h A resurgence of the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis caused by ongoing deterioration in government debt to GDP ratios.
R10bb Joint Treasury M’ment Strategy St’ment 7 Joint Strategic Committee 06.02.14 Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Governance & Audit 20.03.14 Agenda Item No: xx 11
3.0 OUTLOOK FOR INTEREST RATES AND THE ECONOMY
Volatility Surrounding the Outlook
h The potential for a significant increase in negative reactions of populaces in Eurozone countries against austerity programmes.
h The Italian political situation is frail and unstable; this will cause major difficulties in implementing austerity measures and a programme of overdue reforms. Italy has the third highest government debt mountain in the world.
h Problems in other Eurozone heavily indebted countries (e.g. Cyprus and Portugal) which could also generate safe haven flows into UK gilts.
h Monetary policy action failing to stimulate sustainable growth in western economies, especially the Eurozone and Japan.
h Geopolitical risks e.g. Syria, Iran, North Korea, which could trigger safe haven flows back into bonds.
3.18 Conversely the potential for upside risks to UK gilt yields and PWLB rates, especially for longer term PWLB rates include: -
h A sharp upturn in investor confidence that sustainable robust world economic growth is firmly expected, causing a surge in the flow of funds out of bonds into equities.
h A reversal of Sterling’s safe-haven status on a sustainable improvement in financial stresses in the Eurozone.
h UK inflation being significantly higher than in the wider EU and US, causing an increase in the inflation premium inherent to gilt yields.
h In the longer term – an earlier than currently expected reversal of QE in the UK; this could initially be implemented by allowing gilts held by the Bank to mature without reinvesting in new purchases, followed later by outright sale of gilts currently held.
The Global Economy
3.19 In Appendix E, Capita Asset Services provides its assessment of “The Global Economy”, including commentary on Europe, USA, China and Japan.
4.0 BORROWING STRATEGY
4.1 The financing of the capital programme for both Councils forms part of the Prudential Indicators presented at Appendix B, and includes proposed prudential borrowing in 2014/15 of £1.9m for Adur, and £3.8m for Worthing.
R10bb Joint Treasury M’ment Strategy St’ment 8 Joint Strategic Committee 06.02.14 Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Governance & Audit 20.03.14 Agenda Item No: xx 12
4.0 BORROWING STRATEGY
4.2 Typically, both Councils will refer in the first instance to the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) for sourcing its borrowing needs, given that they are eligible to access the PWLB “Certainty” rate of interest, being 20 basis points below the normal prevailing PWLB rates. However, borrowing from other sources, including other Councils and the proposed Local Government Association Municipal Bonds Agency (See Para 11.3), may from time to time offer options to borrow more cheaply than from the PWLB, and therefore will be considered.
4.3 It is permissible under the Prudential Code to borrow in advance of need up to the level of the estimated CFR over the term of the Prudential Indicators. Where this takes place the cash will form part of its invested sums until the related capital expenditure is incurred.
4.4 Therefore, in managing the borrowing requirements of both Councils, they may legitimately be over or under borrowed for a variety of reasons:
(i) There may be timing differences between when funds are borrowed to fund the capital programme and when the funds are spent.
(ii) When interest rates are low on investments and high on loans, the councils may choose to use internal resources to fund the capital programme.
(iii) The Councils may take an opportunity to borrow at an especially low interest rate ahead of the need to fund the capital programme.
4.5 Given the expected under borrowed debt positions of the Councils at 31 March 2014 reported at paragraph 2.1, the Councils’ borrowing strategy will give consideration to new borrowing in the following order of priority:-
(i) Internal borrowing, by running down cash balances and foregoing interest earned at historically low rates, as this is the cheapest form of borrowing;
(ii) Weighing the short term advantage of internal borrowing against potential long term borrowing costs, in view of the overall forecast for long term borrowing rates to increase over the next few years;
(iii) PWLB variable rate loans for up to 10 years;
iv) Long term fixed rate market loans at rates significantly below PWLB rates for the equivalent maturity period (where available) and to maintaining an appropriate balance between PWLB, market debt and loans from other councils in the debt portfolio;
v) PWLB borrowing for periods under 5 years where rates are expected to be significantly lower than rates for longer periods. This offers a range of options for new borrowing which will spread debt maturities away from a concentration in longer dated debt.
R10bb Joint Treasury M’ment Strategy St’ment 9 Joint Strategic Committee 06.02.14 Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Governance & Audit 20.03.14 Agenda Item No: xx 13
4.0 BORROWING STRATEGY
4.6 In exercising this order of priority ………
• if it was felt that there was a significant risk of a sharp FALL in long and short term rates (e.g. due to a marked increase of risks around relapse into recession or of risks of deflation), then long term borrowings will be postponed, and potential rescheduling from fixed rate funding into short term borrowing may be considered if beneficial.
• if it was felt that there was a significant risk of a much sharper RISE in long and short term rates than that currently forecast (perhaps arising from a greater than expected increase in the anticipated rate to US tapering of asset purchases, or in world economic activity or a sudden increase in inflation risks) then the portfolio position will be re-appraised with the likely action that fixed rate funding will be drawn whilst interest rates were still relatively cheap.
4.7 Preference will be given to PWLB borrowing by annuity and EIP loans instead of maturity loans, as this will result in lower interest payments over the life of the loans.
5.0 DEBT RESCHEDULING
5.1 As short term borrowing rates will be considerably cheaper than longer term fixed interest rates (Para 3.1 refers), there may be potential opportunities to generate savings by switching from long term debt to short term debt. However, these savings will need to be considered in the light of the current treasury position and the size of the cost of debt repayment (premiums incurred). The reasons for any rescheduling to take place will include:
• the generation of cash savings and / or discounted cash flow savings;
• helping to fulfil the treasury strategy;
• enhancing the balance of the portfolio (amend the maturity profile and/or the balance of volatility).
5.2 Some 75% of Adur’s debt portfolio consists of long term loans with an average maturity of 40 years left to run, and at rates above prevailing market rates for equivalent loans. The cost to redeem these loans early would incur a debt premium (at current estimates) of some £8.3m, and is unaffordable.
5.3 One exception is the self-financing debt incurred by the HRA in March 2012. The existing balance of £48.6m if repaid early would attact a discount of some £473k, as it was acquired at a preferential low rate of just 3.13%. The early redemption of this loan would also save on future interest repayments over 28 years amounting to £20.6m. However, the ability to do this would be contingent on refinancing the debt at equivalent or lower rates of interest, which in the present climate of historically low rates is likely to prove very difficult.
R10bb Joint Treasury M’ment Strategy St’ment 10 Joint Strategic Committee 06.02.14 Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Governance & Audit 20.03.14 Agenda Item No: xx 14
5.0 DEBT RESCHEDULING
5.4 By contrast, Worthing’s existing debt portfolio will mature entirely by 1 October 2014, so options for early settlement do not really apply. However, on the maturity of the existing debt, an element shall need to be replaced depending on the cashflow at that time.
5.5 In view of the risks within the economic forecast outlined in Secton 3, caution will be adopted within the 2014/15 treasury operations. The Executive Head (Financial Services) will monitor interest rates in financial markets and adopt a pragmatic approach to changing circumstances. Consideration will also be given to identify if there is any residual potential for making savings by running down investment balances to repay debt prematurely as short term rates on investments are likely to be lower than rates paid on current debt
6.0 ANNUAL INVESTMENT POLICY AND STRATEGY 2014/15
Background
6.1 The Guidance from CLG on Local Government Investments in England requires Councils to produce an Annual Investment Strategy (AIS).This document fulfils this requirement. The proposed investment policy within the AIS has regard to the CLG’s Guidance on Local Government Investments (“the Guidance”) and the 2011 Revised CIPFA Treasury Management in Public Services Code of Practice and Cross Sectoral Guidance Notes (“the CIPFA TM Code).
Investment Policy
6.2 To comply with the CLG’s guidance, the Councils’ general policy objective is to invest its surplus funds prudently. The Councils’ investment priorities are:
• security of the invested capital;
• liquidity of the invested capital;
• an optimum yield which is commensurate with security and liquidity.
(The CLG’s revised Guidance on investments reiterates security and liquidity as the primary objectives of a prudent investment policy. The speculative procedure of borrowing purely in order to invest is unlawful).
6.3 Investments are categorised as ‘Specified’ or ‘Non Specified’ investments based on the criteria in the CLG Guidance. Potential instruments for the Councils’ use within its investment strategy are contained in Appendix C Annex 1(Adur) and Annex 2 (Worthing).
6.4 The credit crisis has refocused attention on the treasury management priority of security of capital monies invested. The Councils will continue to maintain a counterparty list based on the approved criteria and will monitor and update the credit standing of the institutions on a regular basis. This assessment will include credit ratings and other alternative assessments of credit strength as outlined in paragraphs 6.5 - 6.16.
R10bb Joint Treasury M’ment Strategy St’ment 11 Joint Strategic Committee 06.02.14 Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Governance & Audit 20.03.14 Agenda Item No: xx 15
6.0 ANNUAL INVESTMENT POLICY AND STRATEGY 2014/15
Creditworthiness Policy
6.5 The Councils use the creditworthiness service provided by Capita Asset Services. This service uses a sophisticated modelling approach with credit ratings from all three rating agencies - Fitch, Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s, forming the core element. However, it does not rely solely on the current credit ratings of counterparties but also uses the following as overlays:
h Credit watches and credit outlooks from credit rating agencies
h Credit Default Swap (CDS) spreads to give early warning of likely changes in credit ratings
h Sovereign ratings to select counterparties from only the most creditworthy countries
6.6 The modelling approach combines credit ratings, credit watches and credit outlooks in a weighted scoring system which is combined with an overlay of CDS spreads. The result is a series of colour code bands for counterparties indicating the relative creditworthiness of each as they are categorised by durational bands. These bands are used by the Councils to form a view of the duration for investments by each counterparty. The Councils are satisfied that this service gives a robust level of analysis for determining the security of its investments. It is also a service which the Councils would not be able to replicate using its own in-house resources.
6.7 The selection of counterparties with a high level of creditworthiness will be achieved by reference to the minimum durational band proposed by Capita’s weekly credit list of worldwide potential counterparties. The Council will consider, but not necessarily adhere rigidly to (see paras.6.10-6.11), the categorised counterparties within the following durational bands: -
• Yellow 5 years * • Dark pink 5 years for Enhanced money market funds (EMMFs) with a credit score of 1.25 • Light pink 5 years for Enhanced money market funds (EMMFs) with a credit score of 1.5 • Purple 2 years • Blue 1 year (only applies to nationalised or semi nationalised UK Banks) • Orange 1 year • Red 6 months • Green 100 days ** • No colour not to be used
Y Pi1 Pi2 P B O R G N/C 1 1.25 1.5 2 3 4 5 8 7
Up to 5yrs Up to 5yrs Up to 5yrs Up to 2yrs Up to 1yr Up to 1yr Up to 6mths Up to 100days No Colour
R10bb Joint Treasury M’ment Strategy St’ment 12 Joint Strategic Committee 06.02.14 Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Governance & Audit 20.03.14 Agenda Item No: xx 16
6.0 ANNUAL INVESTMENT POLICY AND STRATEGY 2014/15
Creditworthiness Policy
* The yellow colour category is for UK Government debt, or its equivalent, Constant Net Asset Value money market funds and collateralised deposits where the collateral is UK Government debt.
** The green limit was formerly for 3 months but in July 2013 the Financial Conduct Authority set a requirement for qualifying deposits for bank liquidity buffers of a minimum of 95 days so the green band has been slightly extended to accommodate this regulatory change.
6.8 Although the Capita creditworthiness service does use ratings from all three agencies, the practice of using a risk weighted scoring system eliminates any tendency to give undue preponderance to just one agency’s ratings.
6.9 Using Capita’s ratings service, potential counterparty ratings are monitored on a real time basis with knowledge of any changes notified electronically as the agencies notify modifications. The effect of a change in ratings may prompt the following responses:
• If a downgrade results in the counterparty/investment scheme no longer meeting the Councils’ minimum criteria, its further use as a new investment will be withdrawn immediately.
• In addition to the use of Credit Ratings the Councils will be advised by Capita of movements in Credit Default Swaps against the iTraxx benchmark and other market data on a weekly basis. Extreme market movements may result in downgrade of an institution or removal from the Councils’ lending list.
6.10 The Councils’ officers recognise that ratings should not be the sole determinant of the quality of an institution and that it is important to continually assess and monitor the financial sector on both a micro and macro basis and in relation to the economic and political environments in which institutions operate. The assessment will also take account of information that reflects the opinion of the markets, the government support for banks, and the credit ratings of that government support.
6.11 Accordingly, the Councils may exercise discretion to deviate from Capita’s Asset Services suggested durational bands for counterparties where sudden changes in financial markets, the banking sector, or other circumstances warrant a more flexible approach being taken.
The Councils’ Minimum Investment Creditworthiness Criteria
6.12 Typically the minimum credit ratings criteria the Councils use will be a short term rating (Fitch or equivalents) of F1, long term rating A-, and (where rated) viability and support ratings of A- and 1 respectively. There may be occasions when the counterparty ratings from one rating agency are marginally lower than these ratings but may still be used. In these instances consideration will be given to the whole range of ratings available, or other topical market information, to support their use.
R10bb Joint Treasury M’ment Strategy St’ment 13 Joint Strategic Committee 06.02.14 Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Governance & Audit 20.03.14 Agenda Item No: xx 17
6.0 ANNUAL INVESTMENT POLICY AND STRATEGY 2014/15
Investment Policy
Country Limits & Proposed Monitoring Arrangements
6.13 The Councils have determined that they will only use approved counterparties from countries with a minimum sovereign credit rating of AA- from Fitch Ratings (or equivalent from other agencies (if Fitch does not provide). The list of countries that qualify using these credit criteria is reflected in the Counterparty Approved Lending List shown at Appendix C. No more than 25% of investments shall be placed in Non- UK financial institutions.
6.14 The monitoring of the Councils’ exposure to non-UK institutions is especially important in the present climate, particularly in respect of sovereign debt issues within Eurozone countries.
6.15 Although the Councils can control the foreign exposure for fixed term deposits via the choice of counterparties, the ability to do this for instant access Money Market Funds (MMFs) is more difficult, as the assets which comprise the funds generally consist of loans to other financial institutions (UK and worldwide).
Country Limits & Proposed Monitoring Arrangements
6.16 Recognising the present financial climate, and that any investment is only as good as the underlying assets, the Councils shall use a Money Market Fund Portal for placing and redeeming transactions. This will allow access to information on the underlying composition of the MMF’s, including the geographic spread of the underlying assets. A sample report showing underlying assets by Country is shown overleaf:
R10bb Joint Treasury M’ment Strategy St’ment 14 Joint Strategic Committee 06.02.14 Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Governance & Audit 20.03.14 Agenda Item No: xx 18
6.0 ANNUAL INVESTMENT POLICY AND STRATEGY 2014/15
Investment Outlook
6.17 The Interest Rate Outlook is summarised in 3.1 above. The Councils will avoid locking into longer term investments beyond 1 year duration while investment rates are down at historically low levels unless attractive rates are available with counterparties of particularly high creditworthiness (i.e. other Councils or approved counterparties with a minimum credit rating of AA- from Fitch Ratings, or equivalent from other agencies if Fitch does not provide) which make longer term deals worthwhile and within the risk parameters set by the Councils.
Investments managed in-house
6.18 In-house funds. Investments will be made with reference to the core balance and cash flow requirements and the outlook for short-term interest rates (i.e. rates for investments up to 12 months).
6.19 Investment returns expectations. Bank Rate is forecast to remain unchanged at 0.5% before starting to rise from quarter 2 of 2016. Bank Rate forecasts for financial year ends (March) are:
• 2013/14 0.50% • 2014/15 0.50% • 2015/16 0.50% • 2016/17 1.25%
6.20 There are upside risks to these forecasts (i.e. start of increases in Bank Rate occurs sooner) if economic growth remains strong and unemployment falls faster than expected. However, should the pace of growth fall back, there could be downside risk, particularly if Bank of England inflation forecasts for the rate of fall of unemployment were to prove to be too optimistic.
6.21 The suggested budgeted investment earnings rates for returns on investments placed for periods up to 100 days during each financial year for the next four years are as follows:
2014/15 : 0.50% 2015/16 : 0.50% 2016/17 : 1.00% 2017/18 : 2.00%
6.22 Within the approach described in 6.17 above, total principal funds invested for greater than 364 days will be determined with regard to the Councils’ liquidity requirements and to reduce the need for early sale of an investment, and are based on the availability of funds. The amounts invested greater than 364 days shall remain within the limit set for this purpose within the Treasury Management Prudential Indicator at the start of the financial year (Appendix B Indicator 12).
R10bb Joint Treasury M’ment Strategy St’ment 15 Joint Strategic Committee 06.02.14 Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Governance & Audit 20.03.14 Agenda Item No: xx 19
6.0 ANNUAL INVESTMENT POLICY AND STRATEGY 2014/15
Investments managed in-house
6.23 For its cash flow generated balances, the Councils will seek to utilise business reserve accounts and notice accounts, money market funds, and short-dated deposits (overnight to three months) in order to benefit from the compounding of interest.
6.24 The Executive Head (Financial Services) under delegated powers will undertake the most appropriate form of investments in keeping with the investment objectives, income and risk management requirements and Prudential Indicators. Decisions taken on the core investment portfolio will be reported to the meetings of the JGAC and JSC in accordance with the reporting arrangements contained in the Treasury Management Practices Statement and outlined in Section 10 of this report.
6.25 In any sustained period of significant stress in the financial markets, the default position is for investments to be placed with The Debt Management Account Deposit Facility of the Debt Management Office (DMO) of the UK central government. The rates of interest are below equivalent money market rates, however, the returns are an acceptable trade-off for the guarantee that the Councils’ capital is secure.
Investment Outlook
6.26 The Councils’ proposed investment activity for placing cash deposits in 2014/15 is mainly unchanged from the previous year, the exception being the suspension of fixed term deposits with the Councils’ own banker, The Cooperative Bank PLC (See Para 6.27 below). Hence, the approach will be to use:
• AAA-rated Money Market Funds with a Constant Net Asset Value (CNAV).
• other local authorities.
• business reserve accounts and term deposits. These are primarily restricted to UK institutions that are rated at least A- long term.
• institutions with a very high likelihood of support, including Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds, HSBC and Barclays.
• institutions with a moderate or high likelihood of support, including Santander UK and Clydesdale Bank.
• the top five building societies by asset size
Use of Building Societies
6.27 In recognition of the inclusion of the building society names and that they carry a lower credit rating than the Councils’ other counterparties, the lending limits for the building societies shall be £2m each, excepting that for Nationwide (the top building Society) the lending limit shall be £4m – as it is also an institution with a moderate or high likelihood of support.
R10bb Joint Treasury M’ment Strategy St’ment 16 Joint Strategic Committee 06.02.14 Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Governance & Audit 20.03.14 Agenda Item No: xx 20
6.0 ANNUAL INVESTMENT POLICY AND STRATEGY 2014/15
Use of The Councils’ Banker – The Cooperative Bank
6.28 Following downgrading by the ratings agencies in April and June 2013, and restructuring of the bank itself, it is proposed that deposits with the Councils’ banker, The Cooperative Bank PLC, shall be limited to funds retained in current accounts and overnight deposit accounts. No fixed term investments shall be undertaken.
6.29 The second rating action in June 2013 confirmed Moody's rating agency view at the time that the Co-operative Bank may only return to being a fully solvent, operational entity through a substantial recapitalization, which as proposed would involve a bail- in of junior creditors, together with a very significant restructuring of the bank's operations. The downgrade of the bank's Long Term ratings to Caa1 reflected a material risk that, particularly until completion of the recapitalisation plan, further burden sharing may be required at some point if these efforts to recapitalise and restructure the bank proved unsuccessful.
6.30 At the time of writing, it appears that the restructuring plans are progressing on a positive footing, as Fitch rating agency further revised its ratings in December 2013. The bank’s Long Term and Short Term Ratings were affirmed and removed from Negative Watch and the Support Rating of Co-operative Bank Plc was affirmed. Although Fitch also downgraded the bank's Viability Rating (VR) to 'f’, it immediately upgraded it to 'b'. The downgrade acknowledged the losses incurred by the junior bondholders on successful completion of the Liability Management Exercise (LME) which represent a failure by the bank according to Fitch's definitions. The subsequent upgrade reflected Fitch's view that the bank has returned to viability following the recapitalisation.
6.31 In any event, The Cooperative Bank itself announced in November 2013 its intention to withdraw from local authority banking arrangements, stating :
“The Co-operative Group and the Co-operative Bank announced a comprehensive plan in June to strengthen the capital position of the Bank and enable it to move forward on a stable footing.
We have also made clear that that we plan to simplify and rebuild the Bank focusing on serving the needs of individuals and small and medium sized business customers. This means that we will be seeking to exit some banking relationships which do not meet our future risk appetite or which have comprehensive and complex banking requirements.
As part of this strategy, we have decided to withdraw from our involvement in providing banking transmission services to Local Authorities. This decision has not been taken lightly, and we are proud of our support for the local government sector over many years. However, this decision is necessary as we seek to put the foundations in place to support the longer-term stability of the Bank, focused around our heritage and strength as a core relationship Bank, which we believe can offer a compelling alternative to customers”.
R10bb Joint Treasury M’ment Strategy St’ment 17 Joint Strategic Committee 06.02.14 Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Governance & Audit 20.03.14 Agenda Item No: xx 21
6.0 ANNUAL INVESTMENT POLICY AND STRATEGY 2014/15
Use of The Councils’ Banker – The Cooperative Bank
6.32 The Cooperative Bank plc has been the banker of Adur District Council since April 2004, and of Worthing Borough Council since April 2001. The contract for banking services was last retendered in 2011 and awarded to the Cooperative Bank for a minimum period of five years ending 31 March 2016.
6.33 However, the bank have confirmed it will not renew Local Authority banking contracts when they reach the expiry date, and will be supportive in the meantime of Councils that may wish to bring forward the timescales for re-tendering their banking services. This is an option your officers are considering as part of a joint procurement with other Sussex Councils that have banking contracts expiring sooner than 2016. For 2014/15 it is most likely that no change of bank will arise.
Impact of European Commission Proposals for Money Market Funds
6.34 The Councils use of Money Market Funds (MMF’s) for short term investments of surplus cash provides instant liquidity with high quality counterparties at a return comparable to (if not better than) other fixed deposits of short term duration.
6.35 The funds used are “triple A” rated because of their sheer size, liquidity, and constant net asset value (CNAV), the latter of which means that typically for every pound of principal invested the Councils are assured of receiving one pound back. This is not guaranteed, but offers indications of better protection than using alternative MMF’s which are based on a Variable Net Asset Value (VNAV). On this basis the underlying assets are priced on a daily market rate that is subject to change, and could result in a loss of principal (where say one pound invested one day is priced at less than one pound on another day).
6.36 While the Councils avoid the use of VNAV MMFs to mitigate the risk of exposure to incurring a capital loss, legislative changes proposed by the European Commission could result in the closure or withdrawal of CNAV MMF’s in 2015. Among the proposals are the withdrawal of formal credit ratings (but not an opinion of credit worthiness) from the ratings agencies, and changing the valuation basis of the underlying funds such that existing CNAV MMF’s indicate it would be impractical to continue.
6.37 Given that the Councils’ overriding investment priority is “security of principal”, in the event that the proposed changes are implemented, the Councils will desist from using MMF’s if it is the case that they do not retain the CNAV basis of valuation, or that the triple A rating is withdrawn or replaced with a measure below the Councils’ minimum criteria for short term investment.
Use of Notice Accounts
6.38 Alongside the use of MMF’s, the Councils will utilise Call or Notice Accounts offered by Counterparties included within the Approved Counterparty Investment List. These accounts differ from MMF’s in that deposits must reside in the accounts for a minimum duration, typically 60 or 95 days, although other durations or conditions may apply. Consideration will be given to the use of such accounts where they provide extra return over MMF’s or fixed term deposits with banks and building societies meeting the Councils’ short term investment criteria.
R10bb Joint Treasury M’ment Strategy St’ment 18 Joint Strategic Committee 06.02.14 Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Governance & Audit 20.03.14 Agenda Item No: xx 22
6.0 ANNUAL INVESTMENT POLICY AND STRATEGY 2014/15
Use of Notice Accounts
6.39 Part of the Councils’ proposed use of such accounts is to utilise the Agency Treasury Services provided by Capita Asset Services. This provides access to a number of 65 day and 95 day notice accounts which pay the Sterling Overnight Interbank Average Rate (SONIA), plus a mark-up of between 10 and 32 basis points depending on the duration. This currently equates to a daily return of around 0.60% (for 65 days) and 0.75% (for 95 days), compared to returns of around 0.40% for MMF’s with daily access. To use the facility fully, it is proposed to add Goldman Sachs International Bank to the Councils’ Approved Counterparty List for Investments, as it meets the Councils’ short term investment criteria (all other banks accessible through this facility are already on the Approved List).
Other Options for Longer term Investments
6.40 To provide the Councils with options to enhance returns above those available for short term durations, it is proposed to retain the option to use the following forms for longer-term investments, as an alternative to cash deposits:
(a) Supranational bonds greater than 1 year to maturity
(i) Multilateral development bank bonds - These are bonds defined as an international financial institution having as one of its objects economic development, either generally or in any region of the world (e.g. European Investment Bank etc.).
(ii) A financial institution that is guaranteed by the United Kingdom Government (e.g. The Guaranteed Export Finance Company {GEFCO}) The security of interest and principal on maturity is on a par with the Government and so very secure. These bonds usually provide returns above equivalent gilt edged securities. However the value of the bond may rise or fall before maturity and losses may accrue if the bond is sold before maturity.
(b) Gilt edged securities with a maturity of greater than one year. These are Government bonds and so provide the highest security of interest and the repayment of principal on maturity. Similar to category (a) above, the value of the bond may rise or fall before maturity and losses may accrue if the bond is sold before maturity.
(c) Building societies not meeting the basic security requirements under the specified investments. The operation of some building societies does not require a credit rating, although in every other respect the security of the society would match similarly sized societies with ratings. The Council may use the top five building societies by asset size up to £2m, (£4m Nationwide).
(d) Any bank or building society that has a minimum long term credit rating of AA- for deposits with a maturity of greater than one year (including forward deals in excess of one year from inception to repayment).
R10bb Joint Treasury M’ment Strategy St’ment 19 Joint Strategic Committee 06.02.14 Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Governance & Audit 20.03.14 Agenda Item No: xx 23
6.0 ANNUAL INVESTMENT POLICY AND STRATEGY 2014/15
Other Options for Longer term Investments
a) Any non-rated subsidiary of a credit rated institution included in the specified investment category. These institutions will be included as an investment category subject to a guarantee from the parent company, and exposure up to the limit applicable to the parent.
b) Registered Social Landlords (Housing Associations) - subject to confirming the Councils have appropriate powers, consideration will be given to lending to Registered Social Landlords. Such lending may either be as an investment for treasury management purposes, or for the provision of “social policy or service investment”, that would not normally feature within the Treasury Management Strategy.
Accounting treatment of investments
6.41 The accounting treatment may differ from the underlying cash transactions arising from investment decisions made by the Councils. To ensure that the Councils are protected from any adverse revenue impact, which may arise from these differences, the accounting implications of new transactions will be reviewed before they are undertaken.
6.42 The Councils will not transact in any investment that may be deemed to constitute capital expenditure (e.g. Share Capital, or pooled investment funds other than Money Market Funds), without the resource implications being approved as part of the consideration of the Capital Programme.
7.0 BALANCED BUDGET REQUIREMENT
7.1 The Councils comply with the provisions of S32 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 to set a balanced budget.
8.0 MINIMUM REVENUE PROVISIONS (MRP) STATEMENT
8.1 The MRP Statement for 2013/14 financial year was approved by both Councils before the start of the financial year, and no change to this is proposed for 2014/15. The proposals which follow in this section relate to 2014/15 onwards.
8.2 The Local Authorities (Capital Finance and Accounting) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/414) place a duty on local authorities to make a prudent provision for debt redemption. Guidance on Minimum Revenue Provision has been issued by the Secretary of State and local authorities are required to “have regard” to such Guidance under section 21(1A) of the Local Government Act 2003.
R10bb Joint Treasury M’ment Strategy St’ment 20 Joint Strategic Committee 06.02.14 Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Governance & Audit 20.03.14 Agenda Item No: xx 24
8.0 MINIMUM REVENUE PROVISIONS (MRP) STATEMENT
8.3 The four options cited by the Guidance for making prudent MRP are:
Option 1: Regulatory Method The MRP calculation set in regulations since 2004/05 based on 4% of the Non- Housing Capital Financing Requirement, including an adjustment (Adjustment A) to align the CFR to the credit ceiling (under former regulations) to negate the impact on Council Tax.
Option 2: CFR Method The MRP calculated solely on 4% of the Non-Housing CFR at the closing balance of the previous financial year (i.e. No “Adjustment A” to negate the impact on Council Tax).
Option 3: Asset Life Method MRP is calculated as the annual amount required to repay borrowing in equal instalments over the life of the assets acquired, although the option remains to use additional revenue contributions or capital receipts to repay debt earlier.
Option 4: Depreciation Method MRP is an amount equal to the depreciation of assets acquired by borrowing, as calculated in line with accounting Statements of Recommended Practice (the SORP). MRP continues until the provision is equal to the original amount of the debt even if the assets acquired by borrowing are disposed of before the end of their useful life.
(NB The MRP guidance does not preclude other prudent methods - should the Councils wish to consider these.)
8.4 Under the guidance, it is a requirement to submit to the respective full Council, and before the start of the 2014/15 financial year, an MRP Statement confirming the approach to be adopted for the coming financial year. Any variation to this during the year requires a revised statement to be put to Council at that time.
8.5 For Adur Council it was approved by the Policy and Strategy Committee on 18 March 2008 that Option 2 be applied in respect of all capital expenditure funded by borrowing up to 31 March 2007, and that Option 3 be applied for new capital expenditure after this date. This approach was endorsed by full Council for 2013/14 at its meeting of 21 February 2013.
8.6 The MRP Statement approved for 2013/14 includes provision for voluntary MRP for repayment of HRA debt, as it is not mandatory. This was considered financially prudent given that the Council commenced 2012/13 close to the Government’s imposed HRA debt limit of £68.912m. Adur Council is not permitted to borrow in excess of this amount for HRA purposes, and therefore is required to repay debt to facilitate new borrowing in future for capital investment.
R10bb Joint Treasury M’ment Strategy St’ment 21 Joint Strategic Committee 06.02.14 Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Governance & Audit 20.03.14 Agenda Item No: xx 25
8.0 MINIMUM REVENUE PROVISIONS (MRP) STATEMENT
8.7 It is proposed to continue with this approach for 2014/15, and to make annual MRP for a period over 40 years on all HRA debt, being the estimated life of the Council Housing Stock (and in accordance with Option 3). Usually, MRP is applied in the financial year following the drawdown of debt. For HRA purposes, as the MRP is voluntary it is proposed that where debt is obtained to fund new house building, MRP be applied from the year in which the housing provided is brought into service. This will align the period in which the income streams arising from the new homes are generated with the period when MRP commences.
8.8 MRP will be funded from the Major Repairs Reserve which can be used to fund either the repayment of debt or new capital expenditure. It is intended to transfer an amount equivalent to the annual depreciation charge into the Major Repairs Reserve which will be more than sufficient to cover this requirement.
8.9 For Adur Council the General Fund approach to MRP is also proposed to remain the same in 2014/15 as for 2013/14, as per Para 8.5 above. For Worthing the MRP Policy for 2013/14 was approved by full Council on 19 February, 2013. It was agreed that Option 3 would be applied in respect of all new supported and unsupported borrowing. It is proposed that there is no change to this approach for 2014/15.
8.10 The implementation from 2010/11 of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) may result in PFI schemes and leases being brought on balance sheet. Where this is the case the CFR will increase, which will lead to an increase in the MRP charge to revenue. MRP for these items will match the annual principal necessary to pay off the capital cost of the assets acquired over the term of the lease period.
9.0 POLICY ON THE USE OF EXTERNAL SERVICE PROVIDERS
9.1 The Councils undertook a joint re-tender for Treasury Management consultancy services in the autumn of 2013. This culminated in the re-appointment of the Councils’ existing consultants, Capita Asset Services (formerly known as Sector Treasury Services Ltd) on similar terms and for a three year period from 1 November 2013.
9.2 The Councils recognise that responsibility for treasury management decisions remains with the organisation at all times and will ensure that undue reliance is not placed upon the external service providers.
9.3 The Councils also recognise that there is value in employing external providers of treasury management services in order to acquire access to specialist skills and resources. The Councils will ensure that the terms of their appointment and the methods by which their value will be assessed are properly agreed and documented, and subjected to regular review.
R10bb Joint Treasury M’ment Strategy St’ment 22 Joint Strategic Committee 06.02.14 Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Governance & Audit 20.03.14 Agenda Item No: xx 26
10.0 REPORTING ON THE TREASURY OUTTURN
10.1 Whilst the approval of the Treasury Management Strategy and Annual Investment Strategy is the function of the Joint Strategic Committee (JSC), the Executive Head (Financial Services) shall also report to the Joint Governance and Audit Committee (JGAC) on treasury management activity performance as follows:
10.2 Actual performance shall be compared against the strategy approved for the year in six monthly intervals by way of:
(a) a half yearly in-house treasury management operations report for the current financial year submitted as soon after 30 September as practically possible;
(b) and an annual outturn report for the previous financial year on the Councils’ treasury activity to be submitted no later than 30 September after the financial year end.
10.3 The JGAC shall be responsible for the scrutiny of treasury management activity and practices, and may make recommendations to the JSC regarding any aspects of Treasury Management policy and practices it considers appropriate in fulfilment of its scrutiny role. Such recommendations, as may be made, shall be incorporated within the above named reports and submitted to meetings of the JSC for consideration as soon after the meetings of the JGAC as practically possible.
10.4 Note that due to the Committee meeting dates, it was not feasible for this report to be submitted to JGAC prior to consideration and approval by the JSC. Accordingly, should the JGAC wish to recommend changes to the TMSS & AIS following it’s adoption by JSC and the respective Councils, a further report shall be submitted to JSC advising of the proposals.
10.5 The Councils’ Scheme of Delegations is set out in Appendix D.
11.0 OTHER MATTERS
Member Training
11.1 CIPFA’s revised Code requires “the responsible officer” to ensure that all members tasked with treasury management responsibilities, including scrutiny of the treasury management function, receive appropriate training relevant to their needs and understand fully their roles and responsibilities. Accordingly, the Executive Head (Financial Services) shall arrange appropriate training, and at intervals, commensurate with the requirements of Members.
Shared Services Arrangement with Mid Sussex District Council
11.2 The Councils’ in-house treasury management team provide services to Mid Sussex DC under a Shared Services Arrangement (SSA). The initial three year term for this arrangement expired on 17th October 2013, and has been renewed on similar terms for a further three years to 17th October 2016.
R10bb Joint Treasury M’ment Strategy St’ment 23 Joint Strategic Committee 06.02.14 Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Governance & Audit 20.03.14 Agenda Item No: xx 27
11.0 OTHER MATTERS
The Local Government Association (LGA) Municipal Bonds Agency
11.3 In 2013 the LGA announced it was proceeding with proposals for establishing a municipal bonds agency, being a freestanding independent body owned by the local government sector to raise money efficiently on the capital markets to on-lend to councils.
11.4 At the time of writing, the LGA is still finalising its proposals for establishing the Agency in 2014, and is seeking support from Councils to provide capital to fund the operations of the agency in its early years. The proposals suggest that the Agency start-up costs would be around £2m. While the LGA has committed to funding an element of pre-enabling set-up costs, for districts or boroughs the size of Adur and Worthing to participate in the Agency, a contribution of around £5k per council has been indicated. This would be treated as an investment for which returns of between 5-9% up to 10 years have been suggested, depending on the time of entry into the scheme.
11.5 Beyond the initial investment, the Councils would also benefit from being able to invest in bonds issued by the Agency at competitive rates, or borrow funds at below PWLB rates, in the following context:
• The Agency will be credit rated by at least two credit rating agencies with an objective of triple-A
• The Agency is owned by investing authorities, which capitalise it (subordinated debt), earning returns at commercial rates
• There are no cross guarantees
• Capital equity-like, and therefore at risk
• For initial period of 10 years borrowers invest in this risk capital each time they borrow funds (at 0.6% of any loan)
• All capital invested could be returned after initial 10 years, when agency fully capitalised
• Cheaper and more predictable borrowing
• Sector control over own capital borrowing facilities
• Freedom from PWLB adjustment of interest rates and early redemption penalties
11.6 Members are requested to consider whether they wish to agree in principal to the Councils’ participation in the Municipal Bonds Agency. If approval is given it is proposed that a further update report would be presented in 2014/15 setting out in more detail the implications and costs of participating following the LGA’s final arrangements being confirmed. This will also allow time for any proposed legal agreements between the Agency and Councils to be considered by Legal Services, and the implications included in the report.
R10bb Joint Treasury M’ment Strategy St’ment 24 Joint Strategic Committee 06.02.14 Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Governance & Audit 20.03.14 Agenda Item No: xx 28
12.0 LEGAL
12.1 Part 1 of the Local Government Act 2003 provides a legal framework of powers for and duties upon Local Authorities in relation to the borrowing of money and capital finance.
12.2 The Local Authorities (Capital Finance and Accounting) (England) Regulation 2003 provide additional legislative guidance, including, the duty to have regard to the code of practice entitled the “Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities” published by CIPFA, as amended or reissued from time to time.
13.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
13.1 The Joint Strategic Committee is recommended to:
i) approve and adopt the TMSS and AIS for 2014/15-2016/17, incorporating the Prudential Indicators and Limits, and MRP Statements
ii) forward the Prudential Indicators and Limits, and MRP Statements of the report for approval by Worthing Council at its meeting on 18 February 2014, and by Adur Council at its meeting on 20 February 2014.
iii) Forward the report for noting to the meeting of the Joint Governance and Audit Committee to be held on 20 March 2014.
iv) Approve in principal the Councils’ participation in the Local Government Association’s proposed Municipal Bonds Agency, with a final decision on whether to participate being the subject of a further report in 2014/15 once final particulars have been confirmed and considered.
13.2 The Joint Governance and Audit Committee is recommended to :
i) note the TMSS and AIS report (including the Prudential Indicators and Limits, and MRP Statements) for 2014/15 - 2016/17,
ii) refer any comments on or amendment to the TMSS & AIS to the next meeting of the Joint Strategic Committee
SARAH GOBEY
Executive Head Financial Services & Section 151 Officer
Principal Author & Contact Officer: Anthony Jackson, Group Accountant – Strategic Finance Direct Dialling No: (01903) 221261 Email: [email protected]
R10bb Joint Treasury M’ment Strategy St’ment 25 Joint Strategic Committee 06.02.14 Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Governance & Audit 20.03.14 Agenda Item No: xx 29
Background Papers:
(1) Joint Treasury Management Strategy and Annual Investment Strategy 2013/14 to 2015/16, JSC 28 March 2013
(2) Overall Budget Estimates 2013/14 and Setting of 2013/14 Council Tax Report, Adur Cabinet 5 February, 2013, Worthing Cabinet 4 February, 2013
(3) TMSS and AIS Template Report – Capita Asset Services.
(4) Treasury Management in the Public Services: Code of Practice and Cross Sectoral Guidance Notes (CIPFA 2011).
(5) CLG Investment Guidance (Revised April 2010)
(6) The Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities (CIPFA 2011)
R10bb Joint Treasury M’ment Strategy St’ment 26 Joint Strategic Committee 06.02.14 Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Governance & Audit 20.03.14 Agenda Item No: xx 30 SCHEDULE OF OTHER MATTERS
1.0 COUNCIL PRIORITY 1.1 Matters considered and no issues identified.
2.0 SPECIFIC ACTION PLANS 2.1 Those matters considered and contained within the TMSS & AIS reported here-in.
3.0 SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES 3.1 Matter considered and no issues identified
4.0 EQUALITY ISSUES 4.1 Matter considered and no issues identified
5.0 COMMUNITY SAFETY ISSUES (SECTION 17) 5.1 Matter considered and no issues identified
6.0 HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES 6.1 Matter considered and no issues identified
7.0 REPUTATION 7.1 Matter considered and no issues identified
8.0 CONSULTATIONS 8.1 Matters considered in conjunction with the Councils’ Treasury Management consultants.
9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT 9.1 Matter considered within Paras 1.8-1.9 of the report.
10.0 HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES 10.1 Matter considered and no issues identified
11.0 PROCUREMENT STRATEGY 11.1 Matter considered and no issues identified
12.0 PARTNERSHIP WORKING 12.1 Matter considered and no issues identified
R10bb Joint Treasury M’ment Strategy St’ment 27 Joint Strategic Committee 06.02.14 Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Governance & Audit 20.03.14 Agenda Item No: xx 31
APPENDIX A
EXISTING PORTFOLIO PROJECTED FORWARD
Portfolio Portfolio at at 31.03.14 31.03.15 31.03.16 31.03.17 Adur District Council 1.01.14 1.01.14 Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate £m % £m £m £m £m External Borrowing: Fixed Rate – PWLB (61.081) 77.17 (60.227) (58.022) (56.316) (54.609) Fixed Rate – Market (7.250) 9.16 (7.250) (7.250) (7.250) (7.250) Variable Rate – PWLB ------Variable Rate – Market (10.690) 13.51 (10.690) (10.690) (10.690) (10.690) Other (0.127) 0.16 - - - -
Total External Debt (79.148) 100% (78.167) (75.962) (74.255) (72.549)
Investments: Managed in-house - Deposits and monies on 17.595 100% 18.630 18.240 20.240 20.240 call and in Money Market Funds Managed externally - - - - -
Total Investments 17.595 100% 18.630 18.240 20.240 20.240
NET BORROWING (61.553) - (59.537) (57.722) (54.015) (52.309) POSITION
The investments indicated above exclude the impact of the proceeds from the proposed sale of Shoreham Civic Centre, due to the uncertainty of the timing.
R10bb Joint Treasury M’ment Strategy St’ment 28 Joint Strategic Committee 06.02.14 Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Governance & Audit 20.03.14 Agenda Item No: xx 32
APPENDIX A
EXISTING PORTFOLIO PROJECTED FORWARD Portfolio Portfolio Worthing Borough at at 31.03.14 31.03.15 31.03.16 31.03.17 Council 1.01.14 1.01.14 Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate £m % £m £m £m £m
External Borrowing: Fixed Rate – PWLB (0.750 ) 4 (0.750 ) - - - Fixed Rate – Market (16.800 ) 95 (13.800 ) - - - Variable Rate – PWLB ------Variable Rate – Market ------Other (0.191 ) 1 (0.163 ) (0.079 ) (0.041 ) (0.023) 100 Total External Debt (17.741 ) (14.713 ) (0.079 ) (0.041 ) (0.023) %
Managed in-house Investments: Managed in-house - Deposits and monies 10.940 100 % 1.940 8.165 7.786 7.406 on call and in Money Market Funds Managed externally ------
Total Investments 10.940 100 % 1.940 8.165 7.786 7.406
NET (INDEBTEDNESS)/ (6.801 ) - (12.773 ) 8.086 7.745 7.383 INVESTMENTS
Note that the value of investments has been depleted in 2013/14 as a result of capital expenditure, largely relating to the Splashpoint leisure complex. This is mitigated by the expected increase in funds in 2014/15 following the completion of the proposed sale of the Aquarena site to the value of £5m
R10bb Joint Treasury M’ment Strategy St’ment 29 Joint Strategic Committee 06.02.14 Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Governance & Audit 20.03.14 Agenda Item No: xx 33
APPENDIX B
PRUDENTIAL INDICATORS – ESTIMATES 2014/15 TO 2016/2017
1 BACKGROUND
There is a requirement under the Local Government Act 2003 for local authorities to have regard to CIPFA’s Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities (the “CIPFA Prudential Code”) when setting and reviewing their Prudential Indicators. Under the prudential system, individual authorities are responsible for deciding their own level of borrowing, having regard to CIPFA’s Code. The essence of the code is that borrowing for capital investment purposes should be affordable, sustainable and prudent.
2. NET BORROWING AND THE CAPITAL FINANCING REQUIREMENT
2.1 This is a key indicator of prudence. Net external borrowing is the difference between gross investments and borrowing. The capital financing requirement (CFR) is a separate estimate of the underlying need to borrow, and is shown at Paragraph 5 below.
2.2 In order to ensure that over the medium term net borrowing will only be for a capital purpose, the local authority should ensure that the net external borrowing does not, except in the short term, exceed the total of the capital financing requirement (CFR) in the preceding year plus the estimates of any additional (CFR) for the current and next two financial years.
2.3 The Executive Head (Financial Services) reports that both Councils had no difficulty meeting this requirement in 2012/13, nor are there any difficulties envisaged for the current or future years. This view takes into account current commitments, existing plans and the proposals in the approved budget.
3. ESTIMATES OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE
3.1 This indicator is set to ensure that the level of proposed capital expenditure remains within sustainable limits and, in particular, to consider the impact on Council Tax - and in the case of the Housing Revenue Account (HRA), housing rent levels.
Worthing BC 2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 No. Capital Approved Revised Estimate Estimate Estimate 1 Expenditure £m £m £m £m £m NON-HRA* 6.770 6.683 5.026 2.596 3.924
* Worthing does not have a Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and is, therefore, not required to produce an indicator for housing rent levels.
R55aa Joint Treasury Management 30 Joint Governance & Audit Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item No: xx 34
APPENDIX B
PRUDENTIAL INDICATORS – ESTIMATES 2014/15 TO 2016/2017
3. ESTIMATES OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE
Adur DC 2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 No. Capital Approved Revised Estimate Estimate Estimate 1 Expenditure £m £m £m £m £m
Non-HRA 3.838 4.753 3.557 1.674 2.772 HRA 4.852 4.646 3.526 3.205 3.285
TOTAL 8.690 9.399 7.083 4.879 6.057
3.2 Capital expenditure will be financed as follows:
2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Worthing BC Approved Revised Estimate Estimate Estimate Capital Financing £m £m £m £m £m Capital receipts 0.302 0.050 0.397 0.500 0.500 Government Grants 0.536 0.519 0.454 0.454 0.454 Revenue contributions 0.132 0.130 0.114 0.634 0.092 Revenue reserves 0.100 0.188 0.046 0.060 0.080 Unsupported 5.607 5.547 3.848 0.948 2.798 borrowing Other Contributions 0.093 0.249 0.167 - - TOTAL 6.770 6.683 5.026 2.596 3.924
2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Adur DC Approved Revised Estimate Estimate Estimate Capital Financing £m £m £m £m £m Capital receipts 0.435 0.203 0.373 0.123 0.123 Government Grants 1.191 0.381 1.161 0.242 0.242 Revenue 1.962 1.841 0.035 0.036 0.036 contributions Revenue reserves 2.055 2.567 3.261 2.481 2.481 Unsupported 2.808 4.313 1.916 1.997 3.175 borrowing Other Contributions 0.239 0.094 0.337 - -
TOTAL 8.690 9.399 7.083 4.879 6.057
Note: the element to be financed from unsupported borrowing impacts on the movement in the Capital Financing Requirement (CFR).
R55aa Joint Treasury Management 31 Joint Governance & Audit Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item No: xx 35
APPENDIX B
PRUDENTIAL INDICATORS – ESTIMATES 2014/15 TO 2016/2017
4. RATIO OF FINANCING COSTS TO NET REVENUE STREAM
4.1 This is an indicator of affordability and highlights the revenue implications of existing and proposed capital expenditure by identifying the proportion of the Councils’ net revenue streams required to meet borrowing costs. The definition of financing costs is set out at paragraph 69 of the Prudential Code (2011) and mainly comprises interest payable and revenue provisions for repayment of debt.
4.2 The ratio is based on costs net of investment income.
Worthing BC Ratio of 2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 No. Financing Costs Approved Revised Estimate Estimate Estimate 2 to Net Revenue % % % % % Stream TOTAL 5.32 6.87 7.08 7.83 7.31
For Worthing, the ratio is positive as the cost of borrowing exceeds interest receipts from investment income.
Adur DC Ratio of 2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 No. Financing Costs Approved Revised Estimate Estimate Estimate 2 to Net Revenue % % % % % Stream Non-HRA 13.71 14.51 12.47 13.50 13.54 HRA 41.99 44.08 40.88 39.43 36.68
TOTAL 55.70 58.59 53.35 52.93 50.22
4.3 For Adur the General Fund ratio is relatively constant due to the financing costs of long term debt being at fixed rates of interest. Also the movement reflects in year changes to borrowing costs relative to the interest receivable from investments. For the HRA the ratio is reducing as the element of total debt relating to Self-Financing is being repaid on an equal instalments of principal basis resulting in an annual reduction of interest costs.
R55aa Joint Treasury Management 32 Joint Governance & Audit Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item No: xx 36
APPENDIX B
PRUDENTIAL INDICATORS – ESTIMATES 2014/15 TO 2016/2017
5. CAPITAL FINANCING REQUIREMENT
5.1 The Capital Financing Requirement (CFR) measures the Councils’ underlying need to borrow for capital purposes. The calculation of the CFR is taken from the amounts held in the Balance Sheet relating to capital expenditure and financing. It is an aggregation of the amounts shown for non-Current Assets, Long-term debtors for capital transactions, the Revaluation Reserve, the Capital Adjustment Account, Donated Assets Reserve and any other balances treated as capital expenditure.
Worthing BC 2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 No. Capital Financing Approved Revised Estimate Estimate Estimate 3 Requirement £m £m £m £m £m
TOTAL CFR 26.405 25.216 27.880 27.430 28.778
No. Adur DC 2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 3 Capital Financing Approved Revised Estimate Estimate Estimate Requirement £m £m £m £m £m
Non-HRA 12.892 14.076 15.108 15.361 16.713 HRA 66.078 65.562 63.994 63.284 62.655
TOTAL 78.970 79.638 79.102 78.645 79.368
5.2 The year–on-year change in the CFR is due to the following
Worthing BC 2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Capital Financing Approved Revised Estimate Estimate Estimate Requirement £m £m £m £m £m BALANCE B/F 23.194 20.552 25.216 27.880 27.430 Capital expenditure 4.091 5.548 3.848 0.948 2.798 financed from unsupported borrowing (per 3.2) Revenue provision for (0.880 ) (0.884 ) (1.184 ) (1.398 ) (1.450 ) debt Redemption. Supported Borrowing - - - - - BALANCE C/F 26.405 25.216 27.880 27.430 28.778
R55aa Joint Treasury Management 33 Joint Governance & Audit Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item No: xx 37
APPENDIX B
PRUDENTIAL INDICATORS – ESTIMATES 2014/15 TO 2016/2017
5. CAPITAL FINANCING REQUIREMENT
Adur DC 2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Capital Financing Approved Revised Estimate Estimate Estimate Requirement £m £m £m £m £m BALANCE B/F 78.988 77.779 79.638 79.102 78.645
Capital expenditure 2.529 4.313 1.916 1.997 3.175 financed from unsupported borrowing (per 3.2) Revenue provision for (2.547 ) (2.454 ) (2.452 ) (2.454 ) (2.452 ) debt Redemption. BALANCE C/F 78.970 79.638 79.102 78.645 79.368
6. ACTUAL EXTERNAL DEBT
6.1 This indicator is obtained directly from the Councils’ balance sheets. It is the closing balance for actual gross borrowing plus other long-term liabilities. This Indicator is measured in a manner consistent for comparison with the Operational Boundary and Authorised Limit.
No. 4 Actual Worthing External Debt as at 31/03/2013 £m
Borrowing 15.720 Other Long-term Liabilities - TOTAL 15.720
No. Adur DC 4 Actual Adur External Debt as at 31/03/2013 £m
BORROWING HRA 66.869 General Fund 13.185 Total Borrowing 80.054 Other Long-term Liabilities - TOTAL DEBT 80.054
R55aa Joint Treasury Management 34 Joint Governance & Audit Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item No: xx 38
APPENDIX B
PRUDENTIAL INDICATORS – ESTIMATES 2014/15 TO 2016/2017
7. INCREMENTAL IMPACT OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT DECISIONS
7.1 This is an indicator of affordability that shows the impact of capital investment decisions on Council Tax. The incremental impact is calculated by comparing the total revenue budget requirement of the current approved capital programme with an equivalent calculation of the revenue budget requirement arising from the proposed capital programme.
WBC Incremental 2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 No. Impact of Approved Revised Estimate Estimate Estimate 5 Capital £ £ £ £ £ Investment Decisions Increase / (Decrease) in 8.32 10.28 5.23 5.75 1.38 Band D Council Tax
The increase in 2013/14 reflects higher than normal borrowing in 2012/13 to fund the capital programme, and that MRP is applied in the year following drawdown of borrowing.
Adur DC 2013/14 Incremental 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 No. Approve Impact of Capital Revised Estimate Estimate Estimate 5 d Investment £ £ £ £ £ Decisions Increase in Band 5.98 0.29 1.21 11.55 9.77 D Council Tax Increase in Average Weekly -0.02 -0.10 -0.69 -0.21 -0.04 Housing Rents
7.2 For Adur The 2013/14 General Fund revised amount is lower than the original estimate due to slippage in capital expenditure during 2012/13 and the deferral of borrowing, which impacts on MRP applied in the following year. The movement in HRA values reflects the changes in capital programme and incidental borrowing costs.
8. AUTHORISED LIMIT AND OPERATIONAL BOUNDARY FOR EXTERNAL DEBT
8.1 The Councils have an integrated treasury management strategy and manages its treasury position in accordance with its approved strategy and practice. Overall borrowing will therefore arise as a consequence of all the financial transactions of the Councils and not just those arising from capital spending reflected in the CFR.
R55aa Joint Treasury Management 35 Joint Governance & Audit Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item No: xx 39
APPENDIX B
PRUDENTIAL INDICATORS – ESTIMATES 2014/15 TO 2016/2017
8. AUTHORISED LIMIT AND OPERATIONAL BOUNDARY FOR EXTERNAL DEBT
8.2 The Authorised Limit sets the maximum level of external borrowing on a gross basis (i.e. not net of investments) for the Councils. It is measured on a daily basis against all external borrowing items on the Balance Sheet (i.e. long and short term borrowing, overdrawn bank balances and long term liabilities). This Prudential Indicator separately identifies borrowing from other long term liabilities such as finance leases. It is consistent with the Councils’ existing commitments, its proposals for capital expenditure and financing and its approved treasury management policy statement and practices.
8.3 The Authorised Limit has been set on the estimate of the most likely, prudent but not worst case scenario with sufficient headroom over and above this to allow for unusual cash movements.
8.4 The Authorised Limit is the statutory limit determined under Section 3(1) of the Local Government Act 2003 (referred to in the legislation as the Affordable Limit).
Worthing BC 2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 No. Authorised Limit Approved Revised Estimate Estimate Estimate 6 for External Debt £ £ £ £ £
Borrowing 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 Other Long-term Liabilities 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
TOTAL 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0
Adur DC 2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 No. Authorised Limit Approved Revised Estimate Estimate Estimate 6 for External Debt £ £ £ £ £
Borrowing 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 Other Long-term Liabilities 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
The Operational Boundary links directly to the Councils’ estimates of the CFR and estimates of other cash flow requirements. This indicator is based on the same estimates as the Authorised Limit reflecting the most likely, prudent but not worst case scenario but without the additional headroom included within the Authorised Limit.
R55aa Joint Treasury Management 36 Joint Governance & Audit Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item No: xx 40
APPENDIX B
PRUDENTIAL INDICATORS – ESTIMATES 2014/15 TO 2016/2017
8. AUTHORISED LIMIT AND OPERATIONAL BOUNDARY FOR EXTERNAL DEBT
8.6 The Executive Head (Financial Services) has delegated authority, within the total limit for any individual year, to effect movement between the separately agreed limits for borrowing and other long-term liabilities. Decisions will be based on the outcome of financial option appraisals and best value considerations. Any movement between these separate limits will be reported to the next meeting of the respective Cabinet at the earliest opportunity.
Worthing BC 2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 No. Operational Approved Revised Estimate Estimate Estimate 7 Boundary for £ £ £ £ £ External Debt
Borrowing 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 Other Long-term 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Liabilities TOTAL 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Adur Dc 2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 No. Operational Approved Revised Estimate Estimate Estimate 7 Boundary for £ £ £ £ £ External Debt
Borrowing 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 Other Long-term 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Liabilities TOTAL 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0
9. ADOPTION OF THE CIPFA TREASURY MANAGEMENT CODE
9.1 This indicator demonstrates that the Councils have adopted the principles of best practice.
No. 8 Adoption of the CIPFA Code of Practice in Treasury Management Worthing Council approved the adoption of the CIPFA Treasury Management Code
at its meeting on 20 March 2003.
No. 8 Adoption of the CIPFA Code of Practice in Treasury Management Adur Council approved the adoption of the CIPFA Treasury Management Code at
its meeting on 21 March 2002.
R55aa Joint Treasury Management 37 Joint Governance & Audit Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item No: xx 41
APPENDIX B
PRUDENTIAL INDICATORS – ESTIMATES 2014/15 TO 2016/2017
10. UPPER LIMITS FOR FIXED INTEREST RATE EXPOSURE AND VARIABLE INTEREST RATE EXPOSURE
10.1 These indicators allow the Councils to manage the extent to which there is exposure to changes in interest rates. The Councils calculate these limits on net principal outstanding sums, (i.e. total debt net of total investments).
10.2 The upper limit for variable rate exposure has been set to ensure that the Councils are not exposed to interest rate rises which could adversely impact on the revenue budget.
Worthing BC 2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 No. Upper Limit for Approved Revised Estimate Estimate Estimate 9 Fixed Interest % % % % % Rate Exposure: Investments only -75 -100 -100 -100 -100 Borrowing only 100 100 100 100 100 Limit Based on 100 100 100 100 100 Net Debt
2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Adur DC Approved Revised Estimate Estimate Estimate % % % % % Upper Limit for No. Fixed Interest 9 Rate Exposure: Investments only -73 -100 -100 -100 -100 Borrowing only 65 100 100 100 100 Limit Based on 83 83 82 81 80 Net Debt
Worthing BC 2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 No. Upper Limit for Approved Revised Estimate Estimate Estimate 10 Variable Interest % % % % % Rate Exposure: Investments only -100 -100 -100 -100 -100 Borrowing only 25 25 25 25 25 Limit Based on -100 -100 -100 -100 -100 Net Debt
R55aa Joint Treasury Management 38 Joint Governance & Audit Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item No: xx 42 APPENDIX B
PRUDENTIAL INDICATORS – ESTIMATES 2014/15 TO 2016/2017
10. UPPER LIMITS FOR FIXED INTEREST RATE EXPOSURE AND VARIABLE INTEREST RATE EXPOSURE
2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Adur DC Approved Revised Estimate Estimate Estimate £m £m £m £m £m No. Upper Limit for 10 Variable Interest Rate Exposure : Investments only -35 -35 -35 -35 -35 Borrowing only 27 50 50 50 50 Limit Based on 18 18 19 20 21 Net Debt
10.3 The limits above provide the necessary flexibility within which decisions will be made for drawing down new loans on a fixed or variable rate basis; the decisions will ultimately be determined by expectations of anticipated interest rate movements as set out in the Councils’ treasury management strategy.
11. MATURITY STRUCTURE OF FIXED RATE BORROWING
11.1 This indicator highlights the existence of any large concentrations of fixed rate debt needing to be replaced at times of uncertainty over interest rates and is designed to protect against excessive exposures to interest rate changes in any one period, in particular in the course of the next ten years.
11.2 It is calculated as the amount of projected borrowing that is fixed rate maturing in each period as a percentage of total projected borrowing that is fixed rate. The maturity of borrowing is determined by reference to the earliest date on which the lender can require payment.
No. Worthing BC Maturity structure of Lower Limit Upper Limit 11 fixed rate borrowing % % under 12 months 99 100 12 months and within 24 months 1 100 24 months and within 5 years 1 100 5 years and within 10 years 0 100 10 years and within 20 years 0 100 20 years and within 30 years 0 100 30 years and within 40 years 0 100 40 years and within 50 years 0 100 50 years and above 0 100
R55aa Joint Treasury Management 39 Joint Governance & Audit Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item No: xx 43 APPENDIX B
PRUDENTIAL INDICATORS – ESTIMATES 2014/15 TO 2016/2017
11. MATURITY STRUCTURE OF FIXED RATE BORROWING
No. Adur DC Maturity structure of fixed Lower Limit Upper Limit 11 rate borrowing % % under 12 months 3 16 12 months and within 24 months 3 16 24 months and within 5 years 6 21 5 years and within 10 years 11 22 10 years and within 20 years 24 48 20 years and within 30 years 18 58 30 years and within 40 years 1 41 40 years and within 50 years 12 73 50 years and above 23 100
12. UPPER LIMIT FOR TOTAL PRINCIPAL SUMS INVESTED OVER 364 DAYS
12.1 The purpose of this limit is to contain exposure to the possibility of loss that may arise as a result of the Councils having to seek early repayment of the sums invested.
Worthing BC 2013/14 Upper Limit for 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 No. Approve total principal Revised Estimate Estimate Estimate 12 d sums invested % % % % % over 364 days
50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0
Adur DC 2013/14 Upper Limit for 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 No. Approve total principal Revised Estimate Estimate Estimate 12 d sums invested % % % % % over 364 days
50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0
13. GROSS DEBT AND THE CAPITAL FINANCING REQUIREMENT(CFR)
13.1 This indicator was introduced by CIPFA in December 2012. It requires the comparison of actual Gross Debt with CFR (the underlying need to borrow), as it is a requirement to keep Gross Debt below CFR, except for short term variations. For this purpose CFR is taken as the amount in the preceding year, plus estimates of any additional CFR for the current and next two financial years.
R55aa Joint Treasury Management 40 Joint Governance & Audit Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item No: xx 44
APPENDIX B
PRUDENTIAL INDICATORS – ESTIMATES 2014/15 TO 2016/2017
13. GROSS DEBT AND THE CAPITAL FINANCING REQUIREMENT(CFR)
2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 No. Worthing BC Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate 13 £000 £000 £000 £000
Actual Gross Debt (14.713) (10.476) (6.385) (7.617) CFR 25.216 27.880 27.430 28.778
Under Borrowing 10.503 17.404 21.045 21.161
2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 No. Adur DC Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate 13 £000 £000 £000 £000
Actual Gross Debt (78.167 ) (77.878 ) (78.168 ) (79.637 ) CFR 79.638 79.102 78.645 79.368
Under/(over) 1.471 1.224 0.477 (0.269 ) Borrowing
13.2 This comparison is a key indicator of prudence, and is aimed to ensure that debt is only entered into for capital expenditure. Where the comparison highlights variations, the reasons are to be explained.
13.3 For all years Worthing is under borrowed. This is due to the debt being of short-term durations of 1-5 years, while the CFR takes longer to write down as the MRP is provided for over a longer duration and in the case of borrowing for the Swimming pool is over 60 years.
13.4 The table above shows the overall position for Adur combining the General Fund and HRA (the respective positions are analysed in Para 2.1 of the main report). Overall, the Council is under borrowed up to 2016/17, when it would be approximately £269k over borrowed if all the council’s borrowing plans to finance the capital program in the intervening years are realised. In accordance with the approved Treasury Management Strategy, the council will manage the position to ensure that actual gross debt does not exceed CFR other than temporarily for the short term.
14. HRA SELF-FINANCING SETTLEMENT
14.1 This indicator arises from the revision to the CIPFA Treasury Management Code of Practice in November 2011. It requires the Housing Authority to report the limit imposed on indebtedness by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in regard to the HRA Self-financing arrangements, and to compare this limit with the HRA Capital Financing Requirement.
R55aa Joint Treasury Management 41 Joint Governance & Audit Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item No: xx 45 APPENDIX B
PRUDENTIAL INDICATORS – ESTIMATES 2014/15 TO 2016/2017
14. HRA SELF-FINANCING SETTLEMENT
Adur DC HRA Debt Limit 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 No. Compared to the Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate 14 Capital Financing £m £m £m £m Requirement HRA Debt Limit 68.912 68.912 68.912 68.912 HRA CFR 65.562 63.994 63.284 62.655
CFR Below Debt 3.350 4.918 5.628 6.257 Limit by :
R55aa Joint Treasury Management 42 Joint Governance & Audit Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item No: xx 46
APPENDIX C
SPECIFIED AND NON SPECIFIED INVESTMENTS
SPECIFIED AND NON SPECIFIED INVESTMENTS
Specified Investments identified for use by the Councils Specified Investments will be those that meet the criteria in the CLG Guidance, i.e. the investment
• is sterling denominated
• has a maximum maturity of 1 year
• meets the “high” credit criteria as determined by the Councils or is made with the UK government or is made with a local authority in England, Wales and Scotland.
• the making of which is not defined as capital expenditure under section 25(1)(d) in SI 2003 No 3146 (i.e. the investment is not loan capital or share capital in a body corporate).
“Specified” Investments identified for the Councils’ use are: • Deposits in the DMO’s Debt Management Account Deposit Facility • Deposits with UK local authorities • Deposits with banks and building societies • *Certificates of deposit with banks and building societies • *Gilts : (bonds issued by the UK government) • *Bonds issued by multilateral development banks
• AAA-rated Money Market Funds with a Constant Net Asset Value (Constant NAV)
• Other Money Market Funds and Collective Investment Schemes– i.e. credit rated funds which meet the definition of a collective investment scheme as defined in SI 2004 No 534 and SI 2007 No 573. * Investments in these instruments will be on advice from the Council’s treasury advisor.
For credit rated counterparties, the minimum criteria, excepting for the Councils’ own banker, (see below) will be the short-term / long-term ratings assigned by various agencies which may include Moody’s Investors Services, Standard and Poor’s, Fitch Ratings, being:
Long-term investments (365 days or more) : minimum: Aa3 (Moody’s) or AA- (SandP) or AA- (Fitch) Or Short-term investments (364 days or less) : minimum P-1 (Moody’s) or A-1 (SandP) or F1 (Fitch).
For the Councils’ banker (Cooperative Bank Plc) No fixed term investments shall be placed.
For all investments the Councils will also take into account information on corporate developments of, and market sentiment towards, investment counterparties.
R55aa Joint Treasury Management 43 Joint Governance & Audit Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item No: xx 47 APPENDIX C - ANNEX 1
ADUR DISTRICT COUNCIL SPECIFIED AND NON SPECIFIED INVESTMENTS
Specified Investments identified for use by the Council New specified investments will be made within the following limits:
Country and Maximum Instrument Counterparty Sovereign Rating Exposure Limit £m Term Deposits UK – AA+ DMADF, DMO No limit Term Deposits/Call Other UK Local UK – AA+ No limit Accounts Authorities Term Deposits/Call UK – AA+ Santander (UK) £4m Accounts Term Deposits/Call UK – AA+ Bank of £4m Accounts Scotland/Lloyds Term Deposits/Call UK – AA+ Barclays £4m Accounts Term Deposits/Call UK – AA+ Clydesdale £4m Accounts Term Deposits/Call UK – AA+ HSBC £4m Accounts Term Deposits/Call UK – AA+ Royal Bank of £4m Accounts Scotland Term Deposits /Call / UK – AA+ Cooperative Bank £4m or 25% of funds Overnight Accounts Term Deposits/Call Germany – AAA Deutsche Bank AG £3m Accounts Term Deposits/Call Australia – AAA National Australia £3m Accounts Bank Term Deposits/Call Spain – BBB Banco Santander SA £3m Accounts Term Deposits/Call US - AAA JP Morgan £3m Accounts Goldman Sachs Term Deposits/Call UK – AA+ £3m Accounts International Bank Debt Management Gilts UK – AA+ £3m or 25% of funds office (DMO) European Investment Bonds EU £3m or 25% of funds Bank/Council of Europe AAA Rated Money UK/Ireland Constant Net Asset £5m or 30% of funds Market Funds incorporated Value MMFs Other MMFs and Collective UK – AAA 25% CIS Investment Schemes Term Deposits UK – AA+ Nationwide BS £4m Term Deposits UK – AA+ Yorkshire BS £2m
R55aa Joint Treasury Management 44 Joint Governance & Audit Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item No: xx 48 APPENDIX C - ANNEX 1
ADUR DISTRICT COUNCIL SPECIFIED AND NON SPECIFIED INVESTMENTS
Specified Investments identified for use by the Council New specified investments will be made within the following limits:
Country and Maximum Instrument Counterparty Sovereign Rating Exposure Limit £m Term Deposits UK – AA+ Coventry BS £2m
Term Deposits UK – AA+ Skipton BS £2m
Term Deposits UK – AA+ Leeds BS £2m
NB Any existing deposits outside of the current criteria will be reinvested with the above criteria on maturity.
NB No more than 25% of funds shall be invested in Non-UK financial institutions whether by term deposits, call accounts or Money Market Funds, or any combination thereof.
R55aa Joint Treasury Management 45 Joint Governance & Audit Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item No: xx 49 APPENDIX C - ANNEX 1
ADUR DISTRICT COUNCIL NON-SPECIFIED INVESTMENTS DETERMINED FOR USE BY THE COUNCIL:
Having considered the rationale and risk associated with Non-Specified Investments, the following have been determined for the Council’s use.
Maximum Use by % of In-house Fund Maximum portfolio or Capital use Managers Maturity £m Expenditure?
h Deposits with banks and √ 5 years The higher No building societies of £8m or 50% of funds h Certificates of deposit √ √ with banks and building societies
Gilts and Bonds: h Gilts √ √ h Bonds issued by √ √ multilateral development banks h Bonds issued by √ √ 5 years The higher No financial institutions of £3m or guaranteed by the UK 25% of government funds h Sterling denominated √ √ bonds by non-UK (on advice sovereign governments from treasury advisor)
Money Market Funds and √ √ These funds The higher No Collective Investment (on advice do not have of £5m or Schemes (pooled funds from a defined 30% of which meet the definition of treasury maturity funds a collective investment advisor) date. scheme as defined in SI 2004 No. 534 and SI 2007, No. 573), but which are not credit rated.
Government guaranteed √ √ 5 years The higher Yes bonds and debt instruments (on advice of £2m or (e.g. floating rate notes) from 10% of issued by corporate bodies treasury funds advisor)
R55aa Joint Treasury Management 46 Joint Governance & Audit Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item No: xx 50 APPENDIX C - ANNEX 1
SPECIFIED AND NON SPECIFIED INVESTMENTS
ADUR DISTRICT COUNCIL NON-SPECIFIED INVESTMENTS DETERMINED FOR USE BY THE COUNCIL:
Maximum Use by % of In-house Fund Maximum portfolio or Capital use Managers Maturity £m Expenditure?
Non-guaranteed bonds and √ √ 5 years The higher Yes debt instruments (e.g. (on advice of £2m or floating rate notes) issued by from 10% of corporate bodies treasury funds advisor)
Collective Investment √ √ These funds The higher Yes Schemes (pooled funds) (on advice do not have of £2m or which do not meet the from a defined 20% of definition of collective treasury maturity date funds investment schemes in SI advisor) 2004 No. 534 or SI 2007, No. 573.
1. In determining the period to maturity of an investment, the investment should be regarded as commencing on the date of the commitment of the investment rather than the date on which funds are paid over to the counterparty.
2. The use of the above instruments by the Council’s fund manager(s) will be by reference to the fund guidelines contained in the agreement between the Council and the individual manager.
R55aa Joint Treasury Management 47 Joint Governance & Audit Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item No: xx 51 APPENDIX C - ANNEX 2
WORTHING BOROUGH COUNCIL SPECIFIED AND NON SPECIFIED INVESTMENTS
Specified Investments identified for use by the Council New specified investments will be made within the following limits: Country and Maximum Instrument Counterparty Sovereign Rating Exposure Limit £m Term Deposits UK – AA+ DMADF, DMO No limit Term Deposits/Call Other UK Local UK – AA+ No limit Accounts Authorities Term Deposits/Call UK – AA+ Santander UK £4m Accounts Term Deposits/Call Bank of UK – AA+ £4m Accounts Scotland/Lloyds Term Deposits/Call UK – AA+ Barclays £4m Accounts Term Deposits/Call UK – AA+ Clydesdale £4m Accounts Term Deposits/Call UK – AA+ HSBC £4m Accounts Term Deposits /Call / UK – AA+ Cooperative Bank £4m or 25% of funds Overnight Accounts Term Deposits/Call Royal Bank of UK – AA+ £4m Accounts Scotland Term Deposits/Call National Australia Australia – AAA £3m Accounts Bank Ltd Term Deposits/Call Germany - AAA Deutsche Bank AG £3m Accounts Term Deposits/Call Spain – BBB Banco Santander SA £3m Accounts Term Deposits/Call Svenska Sweden – AAA £3m Accounts Handelsbanken AB Term Deposits/Call US - AAA JP Morgan £3m Accounts Term Deposits/Call UK – AA+ Goldman Sachs £3m Accounts International Bank Debt Management Gilts UK – AA+ £3m or 25% of funds Office (DMO) European Investment Bonds EU £3m or 25% of funds Bank/Council of Europe AAA Rated Money UK/Ireland Constant Net Asset £5m or 30% of funds Market Funds incorporated Value MMFs Other MMFs and Collective UK - AAA 25% CIS Investment Schemes Term Deposits UK – AA+ Nationwide BS £4m Term Deposits UK – AA+ Yorkshire BS £2m Term Deposits UK – AA+ Coventry BS £2m
R55aa Joint Treasury Management 48 Joint Governance & Audit Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item No: xx 52
APPENDIX C - ANNEX 2
WORTHING BOROUGH COUNCIL SPECIFIED AND NON SPECIFIED INVESTMENTS
Country and Maximum Instrument Counterparty Sovereign Rating Exposure Limit £m Term Deposits UK – AA+ Skipton BS £2m Term Deposits UK – AA+ Leeds BS £2m
NB Any existing deposits outside of the current criteria will be reinvested with the above criteria on maturity.
NB No more than 25% of funds shall be invested in Non-UK financial institutions whether by term deposits, call accounts or Money market Funds, or any combination thereof.
R55aa Joint Treasury Management 49 Joint Governance & Audit Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item No: xx 53 APPENDIX C - ANNEX 2
SPECIFIED AND NON SPECIFIED INVESTMENTS
WORTHING BOROUGH COUNCIL NON-SPECIFIED INVESTMENTS DETERMINED FOR USE BY THE COUNCIL:
Having considered the rationale and risk associated with Non-Specified Investments, the following have been determined for the Council’s use.
Maximum Use by % of In-house Fund Maximum portfolio or Capital use Managers Maturity £m Expenditure?
h Deposits with banks and √ 5 years The higher No building societies of £10m or 50% of funds h Certificates of deposit √ √ with banks and building societies*
Gilts and Bonds*: h Gilts √ √ h Bonds issued by √ √ multilateral development banks h Bonds issued by √ √ 5 years The higher No financial institutions of £3m or guaranteed by the UK 25% of government funds h Sterling denominated √ √ bonds by non-UK (on advice sovereign governments from treasury advisor)
Money Market Funds and √ √ These funds The higher No Collective Investment (on advice do not have of £5m or Schemes (pooled funds from a defined 30% of which meet the definition of treasury maturity funds a collective investment advisor) date. scheme as defined in SI 2004 No. 534 and SI 2007, No. 573), but which are not credit rated.
Government guaranteed √ √ 5 years The higher Yes bonds and debt instruments (on advice of £5m or (e.g. floating rate notes) from 20% of issued by corporate bodies treasury funds advisor)
R55aa Joint Treasury Management 50 Joint Governance & Audit Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item No: xx 54 APPENDIX C - ANNEX 2
SPECIFIED AND NON SPECIFIED INVESTMENTS
WORTHING BOROUGH COUNCIL NON-SPECIFIED INVESTMENTS DETERMINED FOR USE BY THE COUNCIL:
Use by Maximum % Fund Maximum of portfolio Capital In-house use Managers Maturity or £m Expenditure?
√ √ 5 years The higher Yes Non-guaranteed bonds and (on advice of £2m or debt instruments (e.g. from 10% of floating rate notes issued by treasury funds Corporate Bodies) advisor
Collective Investment √ √ These funds The higher Yes Schemes (pooled funds) (on advice do not have of £2m or which do not meet the from a defined 20% of definition of collective treasury maturity date funds investment schemes in SI advisor) 2004 No. 534 or SI 2007, No. 573.
1. In determining the period to maturity of an investment, the investment should be regarded as commencing on the date of the commitment of the investment rather than the date on which funds are paid over to the counterparty.
2. The use of the above instruments by the Council’s fund manager(s) will be by reference to the fund guidelines contained in the agreement between the Council and the individual manager.
R55aa Joint Treasury Management 51 Joint Governance & Audit Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item No: xx 55 APPENDIX D
TREASURY MANAGEMENT SCHEME OF DELEGATION
(i) Full Council
• receiving and reviewing reports on treasury management policies, practices and activities
• approval of annual treasury management strategy and Annual Investment Strategy
• approval of MRP Statement
(ii) Joint Strategic Committee
• approval of/amendments to the organisation’s adopted clauses, treasury management policy statement and treasury management practices
• budget consideration and approval
• approval of the division of responsibilities
• receiving and reviewing regular monitoring reports and acting on recommendations
• approving the selection of external service providers and agreeing terms of appointment.
(iii) Joint Governance & Audit Committee
Receiving and reviewing the following, and making recommendations to the Cabinet
• regular monitoring reports on compliance with the Treasury Management Strategy, practices and procedures.
(iv) The S151 (responsible) officer
• recommending clauses, treasury management policy/practices for approval, reviewing the same regularly, and monitoring compliance
• submitting regular treasury management policy reports
• submitting budgets and budget variations
• receiving and reviewing management information reports
• reviewing the performance of the treasury management function
• ensuring the adequacy of treasury management resources and skills, and the effective division of responsibilities within the treasury management function
• ensuring the adequacy of internal audit, and liaising with external audit
• recommending the appointment of external service providers.
R55aa Joint Treasury Management 52 Joint Governance & Audit Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item No: xx 56 APPENDIX E
CAPITA ASSET SERVICES COMMENTARY ON THE GLOBAL ECONOMY (December 2013)
The Eurozone. The sovereign debt crisis has eased during 2013 which has been a year of comparative calm after the hiatus of the Cyprus bailout in the spring. The EZ finally escaped from seven quarters of recession in quarter 2 of 2013 but growth is likely to remain weak and so will dampen UK growth.
The ECB’s pledge to buy unlimited amounts of bonds of countries which ask for a bail out, has provided heavily indebted countries with a strong defence against market forces. This has bought them time to make progress with their economies to return to growth or to reduce the degree of recession. However, debt to GDP ratios (2012 figures) of 176% Greece, Italy 131%, Portugal 124%, Ireland 123% and Cyprus 110%, remain a cause of concern, especially as many of these countries are experiencing continuing rates of increase in debt in excess of their rate of economic growth i.e. these debt ratios are continuing to deteriorate.
Any sharp downturn in economic growth would make these countries particularly vulnerable to a new bout of sovereign debt crisis. It should also be noted that Italy has the third biggest debt mountain in the world behind Japan and the US. Greece remains particularly vulnerable and continues to struggle to meet EZ targets for fiscal correction. Many commentators still view a Greek exit from the Euro as inevitable and there are concerns that austerity measures in Cyprus could also end up in forcing an exit. The question remains as to how much damage an exit by one country would do and whether contagion would spread to other countries. However, the longer a Greek exit is delayed, the less are likely to be the repercussions beyond Greece on other countries and on EU banks.
Sentiment in financial markets has improved considerably during 2013 as a result of firm Eurozone commitment to support struggling countries and to keep the Eurozone intact. However, the foundations to this current “solution” to the Eurozone debt crisis are still weak and events could easily conspire to put this into reverse. There are particular concerns as to whether democratically elected governments will lose the support of electorates suffering under EZ imposed austerity programmes, especially in countries like Greece and Spain which have unemployment rates of over 26% and unemployment among younger people of over 50%. The Italian political situation is also fraught with difficulties in getting a viable coalition which will implement an EZ imposed austerity programme and undertake overdue reforms to government and the economy.
USA The economy has managed to return to reasonable growth in Q2 2013 of 2.5% y/y in spite of the fiscal cliff induced sharp cuts in federal expenditure that kicked in on 1 March, and increases in taxation. The Federal Reserve has continued to provide huge stimulus to the economy through its $85bn per month asset purchases programme of quantitative easing. However, it is expected that this level of support will start to be tapered down by the end of 2013. It has also pledged not to increase the central rate until unemployment falls to 6.5%; this is probably unlikely to happen until early 2015. Consumer, investor and business confidence levels have improved markedly in 2013. The housing market has turned a corner and house sales and increases in house prices have returned to healthy levels. Many house owners have therefore been helped to escape from negative equity and banks have also largely repaired their damaged balance sheets so that they can resume healthy levels of lending. All this portends well for a reasonable growth rate looking forward.
R55aa Joint Treasury Management 53 Joint Governance & Audit Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item No: xx 57
APPENDIX E
CAPITA ASSET SERVICES COMMENTARY ON THE GLOBAL ECONOMY (December 2013)
China. Concerns that Chinese growth could be heading downwards have been allayed by recent stronger statistics. There are still concerns around an unbalanced economy which is heavily dependent on new investment expenditure, and for a potential bubble in the property sector to burst, as it did in Japan in the 1990s, with its consequent impact on the financial health of the banking sector. There are also increasing concerns around the potential size, and dubious creditworthiness, of some bank lending to local government organisations and major corporates. This primarily occurred during the government promoted expansion of credit, which was aimed at protecting the overall rate of growth in the economy after the Lehmans crisis.
Japan. The initial euphoria generated by “Abenomics”, the huge QE operation instituted by the Japanese government to buy Japanese debt, has tempered as the follow through of measures to reform the financial system and introduce other economic reforms, appears to have stalled. However, at long last, Japan has seen strong growth of 4% in the first two quarters of 2013 which portends well for the hopes that Japan can escape from the bog of stagnation and help support world growth. The fiscal challenges though are huge; the gross debt to GDP ratio is about 245% in 2013 while the government is currently running an annual fiscal deficit of around 50% of total government expenditure. Within two years, the central bank will end up purchasing about Y190 trillion (£1,200 billion) of government debt. In addition, the population is ageing due to a low birth rate and will fall from 128m to 100m by 2050.
R55aa Joint Treasury Management 54 Joint Governance & Audit Agenda Item No: 5 & Annual Investment Strategy Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item No: xx 58 Joint Strategic Committee 6 February 2014 Agenda Item 6
Ward: [All]
West Sussex Joint Scrutiny Task and Finish Group – Flooding Review
Report by the Chief Executive
1.0 Summary
1.1 This report sets out the findings and recommendations from the West Sussex Joint Scrutiny Task and Finish Group that was set up to consider the arrangements in place for before, during and after a flood event.
2.0 Background
2.1 The West Sussex Joint Scrutiny Steering Group set up a Task and Finish Group to undertake a review of the arrangements in place for before, during and after a flood event. The Task and Finish Group was made up of one Overview and Scrutiny Member from each Council in West Sussex. The Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee (JOSC) agreed to nominate Councillors Ann Bridges (Adur) and Roy Barraclough (Worthing) to the Task and Finish Group.
2.2 The Task and Finish Group had the following terms of reference and met on 21 October and 29 November 2013:-
1. To explore the key issues arising from the June 2012 flooding event; 2. To scrutinise the working arrangements, roles and responsibilities between partners; 3. To identify areas for improvement in on-going flood risk management activities.
2.3 The recommendations and considerations of the Task and Finish Group are set out in the final report from the Group which is included as an appendix to this report. The recommendations are presented for consideration by this Committee. The report and recommendations were also reported to JOSC on 30 January for information/any further scrutiny and the outcome/decisions of that meeting will be reported to this Committee. The Task and Finish Group has requested that comments from each Council should be forwarded to the West Sussex Joint Scrutiny Steering Group by the end of February 2014. The Joint Scrutiny Steering Group will be asked to forward the relevant recommendations to the Environment Agency and to Southern Water.
Joint Strategic Committee 6 February 2014 Agenda Item: 6
59 3.0 Legal
3.1 Under Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, the Council has the power to do anything to facilitate or which is conducive or incidental to the discharge of any of their functions.
3.2 Section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 provides a Local Authority to do anything that individuals generally may do (subject to any current restrictions or limitations prescribed in existing legislation).
3.3 By virtue of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 West Sussex County Council is now the Local Lead Flood Authority.
4.0 Financial implications
4.1 Under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 the County Council has become the Local Lead Flood Authority. However, significant contributions (both in funding and wider resources) will need to be forthcoming from District and Borough Councils (as well as other parties) for flood risk to be successfully managed in West Sussex.
5.0 Recommendation
5.1 That the Joint Committee considers the report and recommendations from the Joint Scrutiny Task and Finish Group on Flooding and submits its comments, as the views of the Councils, to the West Sussex Joint Scrutiny Steering Group.
Background Papers:
Agenda and supporting papers from the Task and Finish Group meetings held on 21 October and 29 November 2013.
27 January 2014
Contact Officer: Mark Lowe Policy Officer 01903 221009 [email protected]
Joint Strategic Committee 6 February 2014 Agenda Item: 6
60 Schedule of other matters
1.0 Council Priority
1.1 Matter considered and no issues identified.
2.0 Specific Action Plans
2.1 Matter considered and no issues identified.
3.0 Sustainability Issues
3.1 Matter considered and no issues identified
4.0 Equality Issues
4.1 Matter considered and no issues identified.
5.0 Community Safety issues (Section 17)
5.1 Matter considered and no issues identified
6.0 Human Rights Issues
6.1 Matter considered and no issues identified
7.0 Reputation
7.1 Matter considered and no issues identified
8.0 Consultations 8.1 Matter considered. Consultation undertaken as set out in attached report.
9.0 Risk assessment
9.1 Flooding can have a threat to life and health. Flooding can also result in extensive impact to property, communities and businesses and can have a far reaching economic impact.
10.0 Health & Safety Issues
10.1 Matter considered and no issues identified.
11.0 Procurement Strategy
11.1 Matter considered and no issues identified.
12.0 Partnership working
12.1 The report from the Task and Finish Group relates to the whole of West Sussex and all Councils in West Sussex. Joint Strategic Committee 6 February 2014 Agenda Item: 6
61 Report from the West Sussex Joint Scrutiny Task and Finish Group
December 2013
Flooding
Report by Chairman of the Task and Finish Group
Executive Summary
A Task and Finish Group made up of one non-executive councillors from the County Council and each of the seven district and borough councils
met to consider the arrangements in place for before, during, and after a
flood event. The Group:
Explored the key issues arising from the June 2012 event
Scrutinised the working arrangements, roles, and responsibilities
between partners
Identified areas for improvement in on-going flood risk
management activities.
1. Background and Methodology
1.1 The Task and Finish Group (TFG) was established by the West Sussex Joint Scrutiny Steering Group to review the multi-agency responsibilities, roles, involvement in, and management of, major flooding incidents across West Sussex.
1.2 The TFG comprised eight elected members – one from each district and borough council within West Sussex, and one from the County Council. The TFG met twice – in October and November 2013 - to consider evidence and develop recommendations.
2. Evidence
2.1 Evidence was heard from officers of West Sussex County Council (including the Fire and Rescue Service) and Worthing Borough Council, and from representatives of the Environment Agency and Southern Water. A member of the public also addressed the Group on the subject of partnership funding.
2.2 The TFG received reports on the June 2012 flooding event in West Sussex, including the causes and details surrounding the event, the response by the various partners, and what lessons had been learned for future resilience, response and recovery.
2.3 The TFG heard evidence about the changes in roles and responsibilities under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (the Act), of the importance of partnership working between agencies and authorities to the effective
62 delivery of flood risk management actions, and of the improvement in inter- agency working arrangements and relationships since the June 2012 floods.
2.4 The TFG learned about the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS) which the County Council, as Local Lead Flood Authority (LLFA) is required to develop under the Act. The Strategy had been subject to public consultation during summer 2013, and the Group was briefed on the main themes arising from the consultation feedback. One outcome arising from this work is the work programme, which identifies all county-wide flood risk-reduction projects not considered to be routine maintenance, but must be prioritised to ensure that any investment delivers the maximum benefit for taxpayers.
3. Discussion and Recommendations.
Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA)
3.1 As the LLFA, the West Sussex County Council has a number of duties and powers relating to the management of local flood risk. In order to achieve the benefits of having one authority for supervising local flood risks as envisaged in the Pitt report, the LLFA has to continue to take a strong and proactive role. However, the County Council cannot succeed in this role without a significant contribution, in terms of will and resources, from all other stakeholders, be they other West Sussex flood risk management authorities, parish and town councils, public and private agencies, or landowners.
Recommendations
1. That West Sussex County Council will continue to develop its role as
Lead Local Flood Authority
2. That West Sussex County Council allocates resources required to
carry out this role adequately, using appropriate funding where
available
3. That all local councils, water companies, and the Environment
Agency support the Lead Local Flood Authority
Local Flood Risk Management Strategy
3.2 The County Council had consulted extensively on the draft LFRMS, which will ultimately be signed off by the district and borough councils, and the County Council. However, the role of the risk management authorities1 is not limited to the drafting process - once the Strategy is implemented, partnership working will be integral to its success over the course of its five-year term.
1 Flood Risk Management Authorities are defined under the Flood Water Management Act 2010, and comprise the Environment Agency, the County, district and borough councils, highway authorities, and water and sewerage companies.
63
Recommendations
4. That all West Sussex flood risk management authorities support the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy, and help implement its objectives using available resources
5. That all West Sussex flood risk management authorities support one prioritised work programme for major flood and coastal risk management works
Partnership Funding
3.3 The TFG learned that, due to changes in the way flood risk management activities are funded, few schemes would in future be wholly funded by central government. Any funding shortfall on a scheme would need to be made up through contributions from local authorities, businesses, residents, or other beneficiaries. The significant pressure for funding across the county will make it all the more important that the schemes which do move forward are the “right ones”, however this judgement is ultimately made.
3.4 Although the task of seeking non-government funding contributions for priority schemes appears daunting, there is little merit in delaying this work. Indeed, as other areas succeed in moving forward schemes in other parts of the country, the pool of central government funding available might diminish, further complicating the task.
Recommendations
6. That the County, district and borough councils support a system of prioritising areas for investment for major flood and coastal risk management works within West Sussex
7. That a multi-agency group be created to prioritise areas for investment, develop opportunities for co-operative funding, and identify and access external funding sources
Planning
3.5 One of the main feedback themes arising from the public consultation on the LFRMS concerned planning - specifically, a public perception that new development increases the flood risk to the existing housing stock. Members heard of different practices within different planning authorities when proposed new developments were considered – for example:
3.5.1 Whether planners typically consulted their district and borough flood risk/drainage engineers routinely on particular applications. Practice around the county varies from engineers seeing the full application list and making comment on those of highest risk, to engineers being consulted infrequently, if at all. District/borough engineers have extensive local knowledge of local site history, and have access to
64 maps detailing risk of surface water and groundwater flooding. They can also provide detailed technical knowledge of whether a flood risk assessment submitted with an application is suitable and satisfactorily addresses the risks on that site.
3.5.2 Whether County drainage engineers were consulted on applications. County engineers have knowledge of surface water and groundwater risk flood risk, as well as sustainable drainage systems and a strategic overview of flood risk management work in the County. West Sussex County Council is not currently a statutory consultee in the planning process.
3.6 Although recognising duties and powers coming into effect from April 2014 should strengthen the role of local authorities, TFG members felt that all councils (including town and parish councils) needed to acknowledge public anxiety over development in areas of flood risk, no matter what the source of that risk, particularly in the face of the demand for more residential housing. When considering development applications in such areas, targeted consultation by the responsible planning authority with officers having specialised knowledge of the flooding issues (while not a legal requirement) could realise significant risk mitigation.
Recommendations
8. That all councils recognise and promote the vital role played by the local planning authorities in ensuring that inappropriate development does not take place in areas of flood risk, no matter what the source of that risk
Riparian Ownership of Ditches and Watercourses
3.7 Another feedback theme arising from the LFRMS public consultation concerned the riparian ownership responsibilities that came with owning a property alongside a watercourse. Experience showed that some of the flooding which occurs in West Sussex could have been alleviated or avoided had maintenance of watercourses been carried out by the riparian landowners. The recent drive toward stronger investigation and enforcement activities carried by county and district and borough officers has a part to play, but communication and education are far more cost-effective, and deliver greater benefits. All councils (including town and parish councils) could have a role in identifying potential maintenance requirements and informing responsible persons and organisations.
65
Recommendations
9. That all councils recognise the vital role that landowner maintained
ditches and watercourses have to play in ensuring county-wide land
drainage operates efficiently
10.That a county-wide campaign of education and awareness-raising is
undertaken to ensure riparian owners are aware of their
responsibilities
11.That all councils continue to resource and support work to enforce
riparian responsibilities for the free flow of drainage water
4. Next Steps
4.1 This report will be passed to the relevant Cabinet Members at each of West Sussex’s local authorities, with a request that a written response to the Joint Scrutiny Steering Group be provided by the end of February 2014. For information, a copy of the report will be sent to the relevant overview and scrutiny committees in each of these authorities, and to the Joint Scrutiny Steering Group. The Joint Scrutiny Steering Group will be asked to forward the relevant recommendations to the Environment Agency and to Southern Water.
The report will be published on the County Council website and will be circulated to relevant interested parties, including the chairmen and mayors of all parish and town councils.
5. Resource Implications and Value for Money
5.1 Under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 the County Council has become the Local Lead Flood Authority. However, significant contributions (both in funding and wider resources) will need to be forthcoming from district and borough councils (as well as other parties) for flood risk to be successfully managed in West Sussex.
6. Risk Management Implications
6.1 As well as the threat to life and health (both physical and psychological), flooding can result in extensive impact to property, communities, and businesses, and can have far-reaching economic impact.
7. Other Considerations – Equality – Crime Reduction – Human Rights
7.1 There are no implications for a local authority’s duty to avoid or to reduce crime or anti-social behaviour, or to assist partners to do so.
There are no implications which compromise Human Rights. The proposals treat all members of the community equally.
66 TFG membership
Roy Barraclough, Worthing Borough Council Keith Blake Crawley Borough Council Ann Bridges, Adur District Council Jack Callaghan, Mid-Sussex District Council Duncan England, Horsham District Council Paul English, Arun District Council Henry Potter, Chichester District Council Graham Tyler, West Sussex District Council (Chairman)
Contact:
Ninesh Edwards - 0330 222 2542
67
68 Joint Strategic Committee 6 February 2014 Agenda Item 7
Ward: All
West Sussex Local Flood Risk Management Strategy
Report by the Strategic Director (AG)
1.0 Summary
1.1 This report discusses and makes proposals and recommendations on the implications of the West Sussex Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for the joint Councils. A full copy of the strategy and a Work Programme are attached:
1.2 The report is closely linked with two other reports on the agenda, items 7 and 11, and should be read in conjunction with them.
2.0 Background
2.1 The purpose of this report is to highlight to the Committee the West Sussex County Council Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS) and seek adoption and support for the projects and investigations listed in the work programme which are designed to reduce the risk of flooding to our communities together with future staffing proposals.
2.2 The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 implemented recommendations from Sir Michael Pitt’s Review of the 2007 floods in the UK. Under the Act, the County Council became a Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and was given a series of new responsibilities to coordinate the management of local flood risk.
2.3 As LLFA for West Sussex, the County Council has developed a LFRMS on which it has undertaken a public consultation exercise. The overall aim of the LFRMS is to ensure that the risk of flooding and erosion is properly managed using the full range of options in a coordinated way.
2.4 The consultation period on the LFRMS was from Monday 17th June 2013 to Monday 9th September 2013 and open to all Members for their input. All the consultation responses have been considered and the document has been through minor revision. Your Officers did make significant recommendations and alterations which in main have been considered but not wholly incorporated in to the Strategy. They however acknowledge that a strategy is needed and that in due course these recommendations can be incorporated.
2.5 The LFRMS was prepared following the guidelines set out in the ‘Framework to assist the development of the LFRMS for Flood Risk Management’, published by the Local Government Association.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item: 7 6 February 2014 69 2.6 The LFRMS focuses on local flood risk from surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses, but also considers flooding from rivers and the sea. It identifies the responsibilities for flooding within the county, and enables a range of organisations to work together to improve the management of flood risk.
2.7 The purpose of the LFRMS is to set out how flooding will be managed in West Sussex in the future. It defines the roles and responsibilities of the designated risk management bodies (this includes both Councils as separate bodies) and riparian (private) owners which includes both Councils where they own adjacent land.
2.8 The LFRMS rather crudely identifies flood risk areas as ‘wet spots’, allowing local communities to alert themselves to the risk of flooding. The LFRMS focuses on the most likely areas of flooding. There are 53 wet spots in West Sussex, 10 of which are priority wet spots. The priority wet spots are where existing work is being undertaken and, where future work will be considered first. Projects in other wet spot locations, in non-priority areas, are yet to be considered.
2.9 In the joint Council areas there are 3 wet spots identified on figure 5 in the LFRMS, each with proposed investigations or projects on the work programme. In the Adur District area there are two areas Shoreham and Lancing and Sompting with a combined total number of properties at risk being 8,650 and for Worthing with a combined total number of properties at risk 10,400. In the Worthing area that 3 other recommendations for further investigation which have been highlighted in the Worthing Surface Water Management Plan which are acknowledged to be at risk of flooding but are not included in the schedule of wet spots but are included in the future works programme.
2.10 Ultimately the LFRMS will incorporate a long term drainage asset management plan setting out routine maintenance, upgrading and new improvements in response to flooding issues. The LFRMS will be used to inform investment decisions. The output of the LFRMS is the work programme that will be prepared and agreed in partnership with all the partners and maintained and updated by the West Sussex Drainage Strategy Team. The work programme contains projects to be undertaken by all risk management authorities, not just West Sussex.
3.0 Current Situation
3.1 Following a considerable amount of partnership working with West Sussex County Council and other RMA’s your Officers recommend to the Committee the adoption of the LFRMS together with its on-going development as required. Although the LFRMS is not as clear as your Officers would have liked they have made their recommendations known and it is hoped that in due course and with continued partnership working they will in due course be incorporated. The document as it stands is considered to be fit for purpose but can be improved.
3.2 Following proposals set out in the JOSC of 13th September 2012 a Scrutiny Group consisting of Members of all the Councils in West Sussex was formed and considered the flooding events of last Summer as its first “task and finish” exercise. The Group recently concluded its work and the outputs of this have been reported as agenda item 6 of this agenda with the following recommendations:
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item: 7 6 February 2014 70 1. That West Sussex County Council will continue to develop its role as Lead Local Flood Authority.
2. That West Sussex County Council allocates resources required to carry out this role adequately, using appropriate funding where available.
3. That all Local Councils, Water Companies, and the Environment Agency support the Lead Local Flood Authority.
4. That all West Sussex flood risk management authorities support the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy, and help implement its objectives using available resources.
5. That all West Sussex flood risk management authorities support one prioritised work programme for major flood and coastal risk management works.
6. That the County, District and Borough Councils support a system of prioritising areas for investment for major flood and coastal risk management works within West Sussex.
7. That a Multi-Agency Group be created to prioritise areas for investment, develop opportunities for co-operative funding, and identify and access external funding sources.
8. That all Councils recognise and promote the vital role played by the local planning authorities in ensuring that inappropriate development does not take place in areas of flood risk, no matter what the source of that risk.
9. That all Councils recognise the vital role that landowner maintained ditches and watercourses have to play in ensuring county-wide land drainage operates efficiently.
10. That a County-wide campaign of education and awareness-raising is undertaken to ensure riparian owners are aware of their responsibilities
11. That all Councils continue to resource and support work to enforce riparian responsibilities for the free flow of drainage water
3.3 Another proposal recommended from the 13th September JOSC was to secure the best practical partnership approach for the future delivery of flood risk management issues in this area and where possible the whole County. This work took a step forward recently when the Joint Leaders of all the Councils agreed to support and commit resources to a Countywide drainage team.
4.0 Resource implications and value for money
4.1 The LFRMS itself does not impose any additional burdens on the two Councils however there is an implied burden if we are to adopt the recommendations listed in 2.2. and develop a practical partnership approach as agreed by the West Sussex Joint Leaders Group to a Countywide drainage team.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item: 7 6 February 2014 71 4.2 For the County Council the LFRMS is an overarching document that will incorporate a drainage asset management strategy which is an extension of their Capital Highway Works Programme through which around £1 million per year is currently spent on drainage renewals and improvements. Going forward this programme will extend beyond the highway and include flood risk projects which is a welcomed change.
4.3 The LFRMS and the asset management works programme will become the mechanism by which West Sussex can bid for funds through the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee be they from the levy pot or from the Grant in aid pot administered by the EA on behalf of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Your Officers recommend that Members support this line of action as at present the District and Borough Councils continue to have no direct input to the RFCC but that with strength in numbers if all the West Sussex Districts and Boroughs choose to support this methodology we will have voting representatives at the RFCC table.
4.4 The County Council acknowledge the skills shortage that they have and recognised the potential and skills resource within the Districts and Boroughs and have already contracted the management of the Ordinary Watercourse Consenting role to District and Borough Councils across West Sussex including Adur and Worthing. Dependent upon the Members responses to the recommendations of the Joint Scrutiny Task and Finish Group in 2.2 there may be further opportunity to work in partnership with the County Council and grow a bespoke partnered team to help deliver better surface water and land drainage management to secure improved efficiency for our communities in the future. Further detail on this will be reported at the next cycle of this committee as necessary.
5.0 Risk management implications of the work programme
5.1 The LFRMS sets out how the County Council and its partners are approaching the threat of flooding, in respect of the new responsibilities under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.
5.2 Under the Flood & Water Management Act, the County Council is assuming responsibility for activities that were previously the responsibility of the Environment Agency. Examples include managing the West Sussex IDB’s (Internal Drainage Boards) and maintenance of main rivers all of which have potential future financial implications for West Sussex County Council.
5.3 By example, the Environment Agency has recently undertaken a consultation on the future management of the River Arun. Included within this is the need for flood defence works resulting from the withdrawal of maintenance. Early estimates put this at £5-10m in 5-6 years time. The Environment Agency suggests that this would be funded through partnership funding which implies that the County Council would be required to make significant contribution. This represents the first stage of the project, with a further estimated £30m in 10-20 years being required. In addition to this the Environment Agency are currently pulling together a similar strategy for the River Adur which will have similar demands.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item: 7 6 February 2014 72 5.4 The work programme represents what flood risk reduction work is schedule to occur in the short and long term, when funding is available. The new way projects are funded means that partnership contributions will be required before many projects can proceed. This creates a challenge for the industry in times of austerity, however, as can be seen in West Sussex at the current time, very good progress can still be made with the resources available.
6.0 Legal
6.1 Under Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, the Council has the power to do anything to facilitate or which is conducive or incidental to the discharge of any of their functions.
6.2 Alternatively s1 of the Localism Act 2011 empowers the Council to do anything an individual can do apart from that which his specifically prohibited by pre-existing legislation
6.3 s1 Local Government (Contracts) Act 1997 confers power on the local authority to enter into a contract for the provision of making available of assets or services for the purposes of, or in connection with, the discharge of the function by the local authority
6.4 s139 Local Government Act 1972 empowers the Councils to accept goods, property or money.
7.0 Financial implications
7.1 No financial implications are being reported at this time as dependent upon the recommendations of the Committee a more detailed report on this will follow to the next cycle.
7.2 Under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 the County Council has become the Lead Local Flood Authority. However, significant contributions (both in funding and wider resources) will need to be forthcoming from district and Borough Councils (as well as other parties) for flood risk to be successfully managed in West Sussex.
8.0 Recommendations
8.1 Committee are asked to endorse the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy and supporting work programme as a living draft and delegate Officers to continue to input and improve the LFRMS and annual work programme.
8.2 Members are also asked to indicate their support for the recommendations of the report from the West Sussex Joint Scrutiny Task and Finish Group listed in para 2.2 of this report together with those of the West Sussex Leaders Group of 20th November 2013 to:
1. Recognise the need for Partnership Funding to deliver the Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item: 7 6 February 2014 73 Regional Flood & Costal Committees Medium Term Plan Flood Defence Works in West Sussex and
2. Support and commit resource to a Countywide Drainage Management Team
so that a further report on the consequences of these recommendations can be calculated and reported back to the next cycle of this Committee.
Local Government Act 1972 Background Papers:
Agenda Items 7 and 11 of this agenda Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee Recent flooding and legislation and organisational changes 13th September 2012 Worthing Cabinet – Surface Water Management Plan 8th March 2010 Lessons Learned from the 2007 floods – Sir Michael Pitt Floods and Water Management Act 2010 Flood Risk Regulations 2009 West Sussex Preliminary Flood Risk assessment – May 2011 Managing Coastal Erosion Risk – a new Framework for Service Delivery JOS 24th January 2008
Contact Officer: Bryan Curtis Principal Engineer
Name: Bryan Curtis Title: Principal Engineer Location: Town Hall Telephone number: 01902 221372 e-Mail address: [email protected]
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item: 7 6 February 2014 74 Schedule of Other Matters
1.0 Council Priority
1.1 Meets the terms of the joint Councils adopted Policy Statement on Flood and Coastal Defence (February 2003)
2.0 Specific Action Plans
2.1 Not applicable.
3.0 Sustainability Issues
3.1 All sustainability issues dealt with within the Strategy
4.0 Equality Issues
4.1 A Customer Focus Appraisal was required before the consultation on the plan could begin.
4.2 The LFRMS has been prepared to ensure there is a clear and fair framework for managing local flood risk within the county. The appraisal considered the rural / urban prioritisation of projects, the wide range of information used to analyse flood risk, the negative social, economic and environmental impacts of the LFRMS, and the proposals to mitigate for discrimination and promote equality.
4.3 The appraisal considered the key impacts and included: Risk areas previously not considered Insurance The housing market Prioritisation of projects with better cost benefit LFRMS future review responsibilities Environmental impacts Equality and equal opportunity to comment on the LFRMS The data used to support investment proposals
5.0 Community Safety Issues (Section 17)
5.1 Matter considered and no issues identified
6.0 Human Rights Issues
6.1 Matter considered and no issues identified
7.0 Reputation
7.1 Is the proposal likely to have an impact on the reputation of the Council(s) - Yes
8.0 Consultations
8.1 The consultation ran from 17th June 2013 – 9th September 2013. The plan was promoted with all partner authorities. Additionally it has been advertised through the Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item: 7 6 February 2014 75 media and made available to the public in libraries, Council Buildings and on the County Council web site www.westsussex.gov.uk/floodconsultation. The West Sussex e-panel was also asked for comment.
8.2 Three public drop-in events were organised to help promote the LFRMS and give people a chance to speak with a flooding expert direct before responding. Regrettably none of your Officers were involved with these events and as you can see below none were arranged in this area. The drop-in sessions took place on the following dates:
• Thursday 18th July, Bracklesham • Thursday 1st August, Horsham Library • Friday 2nd August , Bognor Regis Library
8.3 What has been made clear from the consultation is that post June 2012 residents of West Sussex are very engaged with the flood risk reduction programme and want to contribute to progress. They are keen to apply pressure on the County Council to ensure problems are raised and solutions are being investigated.
8.4 The main themes of the feedback included questioning on the following topics. As a result all of these sections within the plan were added to and improved.
. Riparian ownership rights and responsibilities, particularly around maintenance of ditches . Priority of the work programme . Clarity on the planning process and not building in the flood plain . New development and drainage impacts on existing housing . Information on how the community can get involved
9.0 Risk Assessment
9.1 Matter considered and no issues identified.
10.0 Health & Safety Issues
10.1 Matter considered and no issues identified
11.0 Procurement Strategy
11.1 No procurement required.
12.0 Partnership Working
12.1 The strategy and the way all the Risk Management Authorities work in the future advocates improves partnership working. Indeed the recommendation of the Leaders Group on 20th November 2014 was to support and commit resource to a Countywide Drainage Management Team.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda Item: 7 6 February 2014 76
Page | 1
77
Incident Reporting To report an emergency please dial 999.
To report flooding from rivers or the sea please contact the Environment Agency Floodline on 0845 988 1188.
To report surface water flooding or flooding of roads please call the contact centre of West Sussex County Council on 01243 642105.
To help during an emergency, contact your Parish or Town Council to see what actions are underway.
Contact details are on West Sussex County Council website.
PARTNERS OF THE WEST SUSSEX LOCAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
Page | 2
78 Document information
Title West Sussex Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS 2013 – 2018)
Owner Stuart Smith – Highways Commissioning Manager, WSCC
Version Final for Approval
File status
File Location West Sussex County Council Website (Living/Environment & Planning/Environment/ Flooding)
Revision History
Summary of changes Completed by Date Current version Inception Document V5 Joss Carter 13/12/2012 ˟ LFRMS First Draft V6 Joss Carter 25/02/2013 ˟ LFRMS Consultation Draft Joss Carter 10/05/2013 ˟ LFRMS Consultation V3 Joss Carter 07/06/2013 ˟ LFRMS First Final Draft Joss Carter 01/10/2013 ˟ LFRMS Final Draft v1 Joss Carter 25/10/2013 ˟ LFRMS Final Draft v2 Joss Carter 27/11/2013 ˟ LFRMS Final for Approval Glen Westmore 17/12/2013
Approvals (Draft)
Name Name Signature Date
Page | 3
79 Foreword (Draft)
I am pleased to introduce the 2013 – 2018 West Sussex Local Flood Risk Management Strategy. The flooding experienced in West Sussex in 2012 highlighted many of the planning and emergency response challenges we face. The unprecedented rainfall, over 10cm in 24 hours, further underlined the need for responsibilities to be identified and tightened up.
It is currently surface water flooding that causes the most regular impact to communities. Flooding from rivers and the sea occurs less frequently, but still presents a great impact when it does. Although the focus is on surface water and other local flooding, we have included all flooding sources to consider the whole picture.
To manage the impacts of flooding we will invest in flood risk projects and maintenance, we will fully support the planning process and promote water sensitive urban design, and we will do all we can to make those riparian owners with responsibilities aware of their own duties with respect to maintenance.
This is the first Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for the County since we received new flood management duties and powers under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. It sets out how we as a Lead Local Flood Authority will work alongside other risk management authorities to deliver improvements together. It represents a positive step forward for West Sussex County Council and our partners because it will allow us to prioritise and invest money in flood risk for local benefit.
Some of the immediate questions that this strategy answers are; who is the responsible authority? What is the risk? Where do you invest? What should we do next?
There are tough challenges ahead because we cannot do everything. We cannot undertake every flood reduction project in this strategy, but it is important to have risk and projects highlighted so when we can progress it is in a prioritised and sensible way. By answering these questions the strategy enables West Sussex County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority to deliver the new responsibility of local flood risk management with our partners.
This strategy identifies the actions that we need to take over the coming years to bring about a better, more sustainable approach that works with nature. It provides direction on what activities we should undertaking and what the strategic local objectives are. It helps us to plan for the likely impacts of climate change and further urban development in the river catchment area. We Iook forward to using the strategy to help us target our efforts, use our precious resources in a better way, and reduce flood risk to the residents of West Sussex.
Louise Goldsmith
West Sussex County Council Leader
Page | 4
80
Contents Executive Summary 8 Glossary and Acronyms 13
Chapter 1 – West Sussex Flood Risk
What is flood risk? 17 What is the likelihood of this happening and what does this mean? 17 What is the flood risk in the County? 18 Historic flood events 18 Surface water flooding 23 Groundwater flooding 23 Main river flooding 24 Ordinary watercourse flooding 24 Coastal and tidal flooding 25 Reservoir flooding 25 Sewer flooding 26 The wet spots - areas susceptible to flooding 27 What are the priority areas at risk? 34 Adur District 35 Arun District 35 Chichester District 36 Crawley Borough 36 Horsham District 37 Mid Sussex District 37 Worthing Borough 38
Chapter 2 - Roles and Responsibilities
Background and National Context 39 Local Context 42 Flood risk management responsibilities 43 West Sussex County Council 44 West Sussex Highways Authority 45 Environment Agency 45 Internal Drainage Boards 46 Southern and Thames Water 46 District and Boroughs - Second Tier Authorities 47
Page | 5
81 Highway Authority 47 Other Stakeholders 48 Utility and infrastructure providers 48 Riparian owners 48 Parish and Town Councils 49 Property owners and residents 49 Responsibilities under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 50 Strategic leadership 50 Permissive powers to reduce surface water and groundwater flooding 50 Requesting information 50 Duty to investigate flooding 50 West Sussex flood asset register 51 Power to designate structures 51 Sustainable drainage systems approving body 52 Ordinary watercourse consenting 52 Enforcement 53 Sustainable development 53 Responsibilities outside of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 54
Actions as a result of the June 2012 flooding in West Sussex 54 Requirements under the EU Flood Directive : Flood Risk Regs 2009 54 Planning 54 RRegsRegulations 2009 Response, rescue and recovery 55 The Water Framework Directive 56 Partnership working 57 The community and public involvement 59 Flood Action Groups 59 Parish and Town Councils 60 West Sussex Community and Economic Development Teams 60
Chapter 3 – Work Programme and Action Plan
Objectives 61 The local programme and funding 63 The work programme 65 What is being done in my area? 65 How will projects make on the work programme get funded? 66 Environmental assessment of the work programme 67 The Action Plan 68 Next Steps 72
Page | 6
82
Appendix A
The Project Team 74
Appendix B
The Wet Spot Maps (available as a separate document) 75
Appendix C 70
Legislation relevant to the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy 76
Appendix D
The West Sussex Work Programme (available as a separate document) 77
Appendix E Funding 78
Appendix F
The Action Plan 80
Figures
Figure 1 : Properties at risk in the county by flooding source 19 Figure 2 : The West Sussex County Council Surface Water Flood Map 21
Figure 3 : The West Sussex County Council River and Sea Flood Map 22
Figure 4 : The West Sussex County Council Wet Spot Flood Map 29
Figure 5 : The Appendix B Wet Spot flood map information 30 Figure 6 : The West Sussex Wet Spot areas and number of residential and 31 fffffffffffffff business properties susceptible to flood risk by flood source Figure 7 : Properties at risk Nationally by flooding source 39
Figure 8 : Who overseea which type of flooding? 42
Figure 9 : Who manages what within West Sussex? 43
Figure 10 : Partnership groups and governance within West Sussex 57
Figure 11 : The funding avenues available for flood risk management works 64
Figure 12 : Old ‘all or nothing’system versus new ‘payment for outcomes’ 67
Page | 7
83 Executive Summary
This local flood risk management strategy (2013 – 2018) sets out how West Sussex County Council operates its flood risk responsibilities that are a statutory requirement of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Following the 2007 floods and independent Pitt Report, the Act transposed local flood risk leadership into UK Law. As part of this fundamental change in flood risk management responsibility, West Sussex County Council have become a Lead Local Flood Authority and are required to have a strategy to carry out this new role.
Working in partnership is integral to the local flood risk management strategy. Regular communications between all risk management authorities are central to this partnership. To embrace this partnership approach all types of flooding are considered within this strategy so that the complete flood story can be told. The work of neighbouring Lead Local Flood Authorities and other risk management authority partners is taken into account so that our management of flooding risk can be joined up, and not be restricted by our administrative borders.
The structure and contents of this strategy are directly informed by the Environment Agency’s National Strategy and the guiding principles of the Local Government Association Framework ‘Living Document’ (2nd Edition November 2011). The Environment Agency’s National Strategy objective is to take forward a risk based approach to flood risk management.
Understand the risks
Improve flood prediction, Manage the warning and post Flood Risk likelihood recovery Management Partnership Working
Prevent Help people to inappropriate manage their own development risk
The overall aim is to ensure the risk from flooding and erosion is properly managed by using the full range of options in a coordinated way. To do this local authorities, communities, individuals and voluntary groups need to work together to:
Page | 8
84 1. Manage the risk to people and their property; 2. Achieve environmental, social and economic benefits, consistent with the principles of sustainable development; 3. Facilitate decision-making and action at the appropriate level – individual, community, or local authority, river catchment, coastal cell or national.
Using the approach set out in the National Strategy (shown above/overleaf), the Government will work with organisations, communities and individuals. To reflect the Government’s strategic objectives in the local context, West Sussex County Council have agreed objectives to guide local focus and progress. These are to:
• Understand the areas that flood 1
• Manage the flood risk in West Sussex 2
• Enable people, communities, business and public bodies to work together 3 more effectively
• Put communities at the heart of what we do and help West Sussex residents 4 during flood events, and recover as quickly as possible after incidents
The local flood risk management strategy summarises flood risk knowledge. Historical, current and future flood risk in West Sussex has been well documented in partnership flood risk plans - Catchment Flood Management Plans and Shoreline Management Plans. The River Basin Management Plans required under the Water Framework Directive, links our flood risk and water quality strategy. Other strategy level documents such as surface water management plans, tidal, coastal and river strategies provide further detail needed to define risk and scope options for improvement work. Our understanding of flood risk and what we need to do about it is drawn from these plans and strategies and this knowledge provides the basis for the initial programme of work identified by this strategy.
Around 76,600 residential properties and 20,100 businesses were identified as being susceptible to surface water flooding from a 1 in 200 year event (WSCC PFRA 2011). 15,000 residential properties and 3,000 businesses are within areas at risk from rivers or sea flooding (Environment Agency Nafra 2008/09, counting moderate and significant risk). 5,500 of these residential and business properties fall within both sets of mapping and are susceptible to either source of flooding. Overall around 109,000 properties are judged to be at risk using the best information available at the time of production.
Page | 9
85 Analysis of flood risk in this strategy has identified 53 ‘wet spots’ in West Sussex. These are areas that have an increased risk of flooding compared to the rest of the county. The concentrated clusters of properties that are in flood risk areas have been identified so that this data can inform our activities, decision making and investment. This strategy collates the outstanding actions and projects from previous reports and analysis, and forms a work programme that is agreed by the risk management authorities. The programme enables future investment to be managed in a prioritised and organised way. There will not be the resource to design, build and maintain every option, but when funding is available, the appropriate authorities can act and reduce flood risk by carrying out the most cost effective works. From our analysis, previously identified projects and from knowledge of historic flooding, West Sussex County Council has identified ten areas where risk management authorities will initially prioritise work. This does not guarantee work will be implemented in these locations. These are higher priority areas where risk management authorities believe the risk warrants further investigation and where improvement work will achieve the best cost benefit. Work will not exclusively be undertaken in these areas and improvement works will continue in other locations across West Sussex. These higher priority wet spot locations are subject to change as further investigation work is carried out and projects are completed. The priority areas are: Angmering, Barnham & Walberton, Bognor Regis, Earnley and Bracklesham, East Wittering, Middleton & Elmer, Pagham & Nyetimber, Littlehampton, Shoreham & Lancing, Worthing.
Page | 10
86 Since 2010 flood risk in West Sussex has been managed jointly between a number of risk management authorities that includes West Sussex County Council, District and Borough Councils, the Environment Agency, Internal Drainage Boards, the Highways Agency, Thames Water and Southern Water. This strategy explains the role that each of these organisations play. To ensure flooding is managed in an integrated way across these organisations, the strategy and work programme is inclusive and considers all functions and sources of flooding. The intention of this is to recognise where flood risk responsibilities coincide, and where partnership working and jointly funded projects could be undertaken.
As resources are limited, and in line with the new government funding policy risk management authorities are actively looking to draw in funds from beneficiaries to boost the likelihood of projects going ahead. This is a challenging task as commercial or private contributions will not be available everywhere. The strategy has been reviewed by, and will be supported by each risk management authority in the county.
West Sussex County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority are required to set out how to deliver local flood risk management under the Flood and Water Management Act. Strategic flood risk assessments, sustainable drainage systems approval, and ordinary watercourse consents each play their part in managing development and local flood risk. The strategy explains how West Sussex County Council will perform these duties.
The strategy fully supports the existing planning processes set out in the National Planning Policy Framework to ensure development is directed away from areas at flood risk. However, recognising the development pressures within West Sussex, where proposals are within the flood plain or in an area susceptible to surface water flooding, the strategy provides further evidence and information to ensure that the development is safe. All new development near water needs to be appropriate, and requires building design and drainage to be scrutinised. When building on the floodplain or in an area susceptible to surface water flooding, a developer contribution is just one part of the overall requirement to reduce flood risk to an acceptable level. New development should not be granted permission if their proposals will increase flood risk to others. The planning process, operated by District and Borough Councils and the National Park Authority, remains vital in securing a sustainable future for the residents of West Sussex.
The risk management authorities recognise the importance of forward planning, response and recovery. The June 2012 flooding events tested the resilience of all the emergency responders during one of the wettest periods on record. The local flood risk management strategy supports the recommendations of the investigation into the summer 2012 flooding, and the associated improvements to planning, warning and recovery. The Flood Report on the June 2012 Flood Event is available on the West Sussex County Council website.
Prior to 2010 and the Flood and Water Management Act there were gaps in flood management responsibility. Stronger accountability now exists, and those responsible authorities are required to cooperate and share information. The strategy provides the tools to allow joint progress. Tough decisions will need to be taken on priorities because there are
Page | 11
87 not sufficient funds to manage all flood risk across the county. It will not be possible to reduce flood risk to every property, but with the correct accountability in place outlined in this strategy, it will be possible to reduce flood risk overall.
It is the principal aim of this strategy to oversee the direct reduction in flood risk for residents. This aim will be met by the projects that are taken forward in the work programme, and by the actions set out in the action plan. The work programme is an evolving list of large capital projects. Investigations, new information, changing budgets and contributions, and subsequent flood events will alter what happens over the lifetime of the strategy, and minor changes may be made to the documents. Regular reviews of progress will be conducted so that we can monitor the flood risk situation and adjust priorities as necessary
The strategy covers the period 2013-2018 and so will be fully updated in five years. Any variations will be updated according to the review process (set out in Chapter 3 – next steps, page 72).
Page | 12
88
Glossary and Acronyms
Term / Acronym Definition Category 1 Those Category 1 responders are organisations at the core of the responder response to most emergencies (the emergency services, Environment Agency, local authorities, NHS bodies). Category 1 responders are subject to the full set of civil protection duties. CFMP Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs) give an overview of the flood risk across each river catchment. They recommend ways of managing those risks now and over the next 50-100 years. CLG CLG was established in May 2006 (replacing the Office of the Deputy Department for Prime Minister) and is responsible for building regulations, community Communities cohesion, decentralisation, fire services and resilience, housing, local government, planning, race equality & urban regeneration. The and Local Department works to move decision making power from central Government Government to local councils, helping put communities in charge of planning, increasing accountability, and enabling citizens to see how their money is being spent. Cluster A group or concentration of properties that may be affected by flooding. These properties are considered to be at risk of having internal damage from flooding. Coastal Groups Coastal Groups comprise of all the key partners in coastal management – principally the coastal managers from maritime Local Authorities, Ports Authorities and the Environment Agency. Culvert A culvert is a watercourse that has been enclosed in a structure such as a pipe. Combined A separate underground pipe system designed specifically for Sewer transporting sewage, excess rain and surface water from houses, commercial buildings and roads for treatment or disposal. Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. District and The second tier authorities. There are 326 district/borough level Boroughs subdivisions in England, of which seven are in West Sussex County. This level runs services such as planning, waste and council housing. Flood Defence Flood Defence Grant in Aid is the central funding pot of Defra (The Grant in Aid Department of Food and Rural Affairs) that is spent each year on flood (FDGiA) risk reduction measures. Flood Map The Flood Map is a multi-layered map which provides information on flooding from rivers and the sea for England and Wales. The Flood Map also has information on flood defences and the areas benefiting from those flood defences. The flood zones do not take into account flood defences. Flood Risk A flood risk asset is a built structure, embankment or natural feature that Asset acts to reduce flood risk to an area. Each asset varies in terms of its type, condition, length, and maintenance. Fluvial flooding Flooding resulting from water levels exceeding the bank level of a river or (River flooding) stream. Flood and Flood and Water Management Act 2010. The FWMA implements the Water recommendations from Sir Michel Pitt’s Review of the floods in 2007 and places a series of responsibilities on the council. The main aim of the Act
Page | 13
89 management is to improve flood risk management. Act (FWMA) Green Green Infrastructure (GI) refers to a strategically planned and managed Infrastructure network of green spaces and other environmental features vital to the (GI) sustainability of an area. It is defined as ‘network of multi-functional green space, urban and rural, which is capable of delivering a wide range of environmental and quality of life benefits for local communities’ Groundwater Flooding that occurs when water levels in the ground rise above surface flooding levels. Most likely to occur in areas underlain by permeable geology. Internal An Internal Drainage Board is a public body that has been established Drainage under statute in areas of special drainage need. An IDB holds permissive Boards (IDBs) powers to undertake work to deal with matters affecting water levels, land drainage and flood risk within a defined boundary. Lead Local Lead Local Flood Authority – Local Authority (upper or unitary council) Flood Authority responsible for taking the lead on local flood risk management. In this (LLFA) area it is West Sussex County Council. ‘Local’ flood risk Local flood risk is defined as flooding from surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses. If other sources of flood risk (river or sea risk for example) interact with local sources it is common for everything to considered together. This Strategy considers all types of flooding. Local Levy Local levy is a funding pot governed by the Southern Regional Flood and Coastal Committees for flood alleviation schemes. Local LRFs are multi agency partnerships made up of representatives from local Resilience public services, including the emergency services. These agencies are Forum (LRF) known as category 1 responders, as defined under the Civil Contingencies Act. Main river The Environment Agency is the lead authority on main rivers. Main rivers are a Defra statutory designation and are identified on the Environment Agency’s ‘Main River Map’. The Environment Agency has permissive powers to carry out work on main rivers. NAFRA (flood The NaFRA includes flooding from all rivers with a catchment size greater 2 map) than 3 km , and all flooding from the sea (both along the open coast and Environment tidal estuaries). Smaller rivers are included in the assessment where they fall within the area that could be affected by an extreme flood (0.1% Agency chance in any year). It does not include other forms of flooding such as from highway drains, sewers, overland flow or rising groundwater. The assessment takes into account the type, location and condition of flood defences. National The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 required the Environment Strategy Agency to develop, maintain and apply a strategy, describing what needs to be done by all authorities involved. Non-public A sewer owned by a person or company that is not Water Company (private) sewer owned. Ordinary The Lead Local Flood Authority is the lead authority on ordinary Watercourse watercourses, they have permissive powers to carry out flood defence works. All watercourses that are not designated Main River are considered to be ordinary watercourses and are the responsibility of landowners. Note, ordinary watercourse does not imply a “small” river, although it is often the case that Ordinary Watercourses are smaller than Main Rivers. District and Borough councils carry out a consenting role as
Page | 14
90 part of a delegated arrangement with WSCC. Partnership The term partnership is used to refer to joint work and joint leadership of investigation or implementation work undertaken by the risk management authorities. The risk management authorities are members of a West Sussex Flood Group and Flood Board, both of which discuss projects and the work programme. Preliminary The PFRA provides a high-level summary of significant flood risk, based Flood Risk on available information, describing both the probability and Assessment. consequences of past and future flooding. A PFRA must consider flooding from surface runoff, groundwater and ordinary watercourses, and any (PFRA) interaction these sources may have with main rivers. Permissive These are powers set out by legislation to enable risk management Powers authorities to carry out works where it deems necessary and appropriate. There is no legal duty which means that the authorities have to carry out works. Pitt Review Comprehensive independent review of the 2007 summer floods by Sir Michael Pitt, which provided recommendations to improve flood risk management in England. Property level PLP is a term used to refer to resistance measures that slow down or stop protection (PLP) the ingress of water to a property. Examples include door-boards, airbrick covers and non-return valves. Riparian Owner If you own land or property next to a watercourse i.e. a river, stream, culvert or ditch (that is not owned by others), then you are a ‘riparian landowner’ and have riparian rights and responsibilities. Risk In flood risk management, risk is defined as a product of the probability or likelihood of a flood occurring, and the consequence of the flood. Risk All authorities with duties or powers to carry out work on the drainage management network, as described in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. authorities Sewer flooding Flooding caused by a blockage or overflow in a sewer or urban drainage system. South East A working group of seven Local Authorities with common interests that Seven (SE7) includes Kent, East Sussex, West Sussex, Hampshire, Medway, Surrey, Brighton & Hove. RFCC Southern Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (RFCC) and Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee are groups of elected members responsible for scrutinising and signing off the work programme. SMP Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) provide a long-term framework for dealing with coastal flooding and erosion over a large area. SMPs take into account risks to people and the developed, historic and natural environment. They also take climate change into account in planning long-term coastal management. SuDS Sustainable Drainage System. A drainage system designed to control surface water runoff close to where it falls and mimic natural drainage as closely as possible. Surface Water Rainwater (including snow and other precipitation) which is on the surface of the ground (whether or not it is moving), and has not entered a watercourse, drainage system or public sewer. Surface Water Surface water management plans are projects to investigate local flooding Management issues such as flooding from sewers, drains, groundwater, and runoff from Plan (SWMP) land, small watercourses and ditches.
Page | 15
91 The council West Sussex County Council ‘The strategy’ This document, the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for West Sussex (2013 – 2018) Watershed Operation Watershed is an £8.25 million commitment to invest in highway funding, drainage and environmental improvements in areas of the county worst Operation affected by floods. Watershed West Sussex Made up of senior officers from WSCC, all Borough and Districts Strategic Flood Councils, EA and Southern Water. The group’s role is to take a strategic Risk overview of the entirety of flood risk and drainage management across Management West Sussex. Board West Sussex The group comprises WSCC, the EA (Southern & Thames), Southern Flood Risk Water Services the seven Borough and District Councils within West Management Sussex. Its role is to plan and act to reduce the risk and consequence of Group flooding now and in the future in West Sussex. Wet Spots Strategy has focused on cluster areas of properties at risk. These are identified by the latest flood mapping and are referred at as ‘wet spots’ WSUD Water Water-sensitive urban design (WSUD) is a land planning and engineering Sensitive Urban design approach which integrates the urban water cycle, including storm Design water, groundwater and wastewater management and water supply, into urban design to minimise environmental degradation and improve aesthetic and recreational appeal.
Page | 16
92 Chapter 1 - West Sussex Flood Risk
What is flood risk?
Flooding is a hazard as it has the potential to cause harm to human health and life, and effect the natural and built environment. The term ‘risk’ acknowledges the actual harm caused and is different to a hazard. Flood Risk is a combination of the probability/likelihood of a flood event occurring and the severity of its impacts:
Risk = Likelihood x Impact
Flooding is only a risk when the flood water affects people, property, agricultural land or another ‘receptor’. The ‘source’ of the flooding could be groundwater, surface water, from sewers, rivers or the sea. The route or path the flood waters take is known as the pathway.
Source Pathway Receptor
Risk captures the severity of, or related consequences produced by, a flood event. Impacts can be social, economic and environmental, for example the number of properties flooded and the level of associated economic damages. The consequences of a flood depend on the level of exposure and the vulnerability of those people or places affected.
What is the likelihood of flooding happening and what does this mean? Flood risk is often measured by a percentage probability or by stating how regularly it will occur. The industry refers to 1% annual probability floods, or 1 in 100 year floods, for example. This does not mean that they only happen every 100 years. In in betting terms the odds of such an event happening would be 100/1 in any year. Therefore, we may see two within a year, but then not for another 250 years. We may also experience any number of smaller flood events between the larger events.
To explain this information in another way the Bognor Regis rainfall event in June 2012 saw over 10cm of rain fall in 24 hours. This area may see an average of 60cm annually. In
Page | 17
93 Bognor Regis this downpour equated to a 1 in 200 year rainfall event. In other words, the event had a 0.5 % annual probability event, or, had the betting odds of 200/1. Clearly, it was a very rare rainfall event. These rainfall events can consist of torrential rain over a short period of time, or, prolonged showers over a longer period. The important factors are the amount of rain that has fallen, and over how much time.
Rainfall rates can vary greatly from one town to another. In 2012 Bognor Regis recorded over 10cm in 24 hours, whereas inland at Itchingfield and Haywards Heath the totals were much less. It is important to interpret the flood risk maps with this in mind, because they model a uniform ‘Bognor Regis 2012’ rainfall event occurring everywhere in the county at the same time. This is necessary to see where we might experience the biggest problems, which then informs our work programme. In reality it is more likely we will see certain towns flooded as predicted on the flood maps, and others that received less rainfall, to a much lesser extent.
Drainage systems and flood defences are designed to protect against a certain magnitude event occurring. Most surface water drains and sewers are designed to cope with a 1 in 30 year event, whilst river and tidal defences are generally built to protect against a 1 in 100 year or 1 in 200 year event respectively. The dilemma in flood risk management is how much do you over engineer your design to account for very rare events. This is one of the cost benefit choices that risk management authorities make.
What is the flood risk within the County?
Historic flood events
West Sussex has a history of fluvial, coastal, surface water and groundwater flooding. There are records that extend back hundreds of years shown in previous research from our archives, provided by the fire brigade, media, academic papers, and the British Hydrological Survey. Often it is difficult to compare different events because the towns and rivers have been modified over time, and statistical information can be incomplete. The historic flood events that have occurred since 1968, and caused approximately 100 properties or more to flood, are shown in the diagram below. Hundreds of other smaller flood events have been recorded across the county from a range of flood risk sources. Some events affected properties, others just roads, and in some instances the information does not specify.
Flooding occurs within West Sussex at many locations. To identify these areas in the county existing plans and the latest flood risk mapping has been reviewed. It is not possible to prevent all flooding but we will work closely with our partners to manage the impact on our communities.
Page | 18
94 1968 1980/ 1993/ 2000 2012 Horsham 1981 1994 Chichester Manhood 422 properties (Rother /Ems Peninsula , Worthing & Chichester and Valley) Bognor Regis & flooded Littlehampton Barnham 98 Unknown coastal towns 600 properties properties flooded number flooded 800 properties flooded flooded
The property counts in Figure 1 are derived from the West Sussex Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PRFA 2011) and latest flood risk mapping from the Environment Agency (the National Flood Risk Assessment - Nafra 2008/09). These are described on page 27. Both data sets will be updated in late 2013, and any variations in property risk numbers included in the next review of the strategy.
Combined risk
Surface Water Flood Risk Sea & River Flood Risk*
Figure 1: Properties at risk in the county by flooding source (these figures includes flats above ground floor level that would be indirectly affected, *counting properties and businesses at moderate and significant sea and river flood risk)
76,600 residential properties and 20,100 businesses were identified as being within susceptible surface water flood risk areas in the PFRA. 15,000 residential properties and 3,000 businesses are within areas at risk from rivers or sea flooding (Environment Agency Nafra 2008/09, counting moderate and significant risk). 5,500 of these residential and
Page | 19
95 business properties fall within both sets of mapping and are susceptible to either source of flooding.
This best available mapping indicates that over 100,000 properties are in areas susceptible to flood risk within the county. The flood risk in West Sussex can be attributed to the sea, rivers, watercourses, ditches, rifes, sewers (foul water, surface water and combined), groundwater and from surface water. Irrespective of the source of the water, the result and impact on a property or on a community is still the same. Flood damage is expensive and can take many months to repair.
For those responsible for managing flood risk, the source of flooding is very important in order to understand what potential solutions may be. To manage flood risk an assessment should identify the source of the water so that options for management and a solution, if appropriate and feasible, can be considered.
Over page
Figure 2: The West Sussex Surface Water Flood Map, showing the extent of surface water flooding from a 1 in 200 year rainfall event. The purple colour shows areas at risk.
Figure 3: The West Sussex River and Sea Flood Map, showing the extent of river and sea flooding from a 1 in 200 year river event, and 1 in 200 year sea event (The Environment Agency Flood Map, not accounting for existing flood defences). The dark blue colour shows areas at risk.
Page | 20
96
Page | 21
97
Page | 22
98 Sources of Flooding
Surface Water Flooding
Surface water flooding results from excess overland flow and ponding. This can be caused by intense short duration storms or by any storm when the ground is already saturated. During intense storms, the water simply does not have time to soak into the ground, and when the ground is already saturated the water cannot soak in at all.
Within the built environment surface water will tend to collect more easily because the water cannot infiltrate or drain into the ground like it would do naturally. In the urban environment and on roads, water is normally funnelled into sewers, and when the drainage network blocks or when sewer capacity is exceeded, flooding can occur. It is difficult to predict if, where and when it will occur.
The residential areas that are most susceptible include Shoreham, Lancing, Worthing, Crawley, Horsham, Bognor Regis, Felpham, Elmer, Bersted, Middleton, Bosham, Selsey, Birdham, Barnham, Pulborough, Ifold, Burgess Hill and Haywards Heath.
Surface water flooding is not restricted to urban areas and can occur in rural areas when drainage is prevented by blockages or saturated ground. In rural areas, due to the landscape and topography of the South Downs, downland run-off can also cause flooding. Land management, such as the way farmers plough fields, the removal of hedgerows and infilling of ditches, can contribute to run-off rates. Most notably in the Rother Valley in West Sussex, the way the land is managed can significantly change run off and soil erosion.
Surface water has contributed significantly to flooding experienced in the county recently. Three Surface Water Management Plans are currently underway in West Sussex. These plans will identify improvement actions that will be included on the strategy work programme (Appendix D). Future Surface Water Management Plans are expected to be carried out within West Sussex depending on funding and priority (proposed at North Lancing, Manhood Peninsula, Bognor, Horsham, Haywards Heath and Shoreham) and are included in the work programme.
Elmer Sands Surface Water Management Plan Worthing Surface Water Management Plan Lidsey (Waste Water Treatment Works) Catchment Surface Water Management Plan
Groundwater Flooding
Groundwater flooding can occur when groundwater rises up from the underlying water table. Water emerges at the ground surface, flooding both surface and subsurface infrastructure. This type of flooding is generally caused by rising water levels in permeable aquifers (primarily chalk in West Sussex) in response to prolonged above average rainfall or from
Page | 23
99 high water levels in adjacent rivers. Due to the chalk geology running across West Sussex, the lower slopes of the South Downs are the area’s most susceptible to experience this type of flooding. Though the underlying geology is fairly well understood it is actually difficult to predict when or where groundwater will emerge. Mapping of areas is based on the ground type and from areas historically known to have been affected. Groundwater can affect the areas in the upper reaches of the River Lavant (Singleton, East Dean and Charlton), Bosham Stream (Woodend, Funtington), River Ems (Walderton, Stoughton, Compton, West Marden), and North Lancing and Durrington. Other localised areas can be affected due to ground conditions or topography.
Main River Flooding
Main rivers are defined by Defra and are important watercourses that carry significant flood risk. The Environment Agency has permissive powers to undertake works on these rivers. The major river catchments in West Sussex are the River Arun, the River Adur and a number smaller watercourses that make up the West Sussex Rifes. Part of the River Mole catchment that drains north into the River Thames also falls within West Sussex. The River Arun and the River Adur both flow south through the county and discharge into the English Channel at Littlehampton and Shoreham respectively.
The risk of river flooding impacts a number of West Sussex towns including Arundel, Bognor Regis, Chichester, Littlehampton, Shoreham and Crawley. The rivers help drain on average 600mm of annual rainfall. Heavy rainfall can cause rivers to overtop their banks and spill onto the adjacent floodplain. The characteristics of the river catchments are dominated by their topography, with fast flowing streams emerging from the high Weald to the north, flowing into a low lying coastal plain where the gradient is less and the river flows are much slower. The flood risk on rivers is managed strategically by Catchment Flood Management Plans. The strategy work programme includes work not yet started from these plans:
The Arun and Western Streams Catchment Flood Management Plan The Ouse Catchment Flood Management Plan The Adur Catchment Flood Management Plan The Thames Catchment Flood Management Plan The Lower Tidal River Arun Strategy
Ordinary Watercourse Flooding
An ordinary watercourse is any watercourse (river, stream, ditch, cut, sluice, rife, dyke or non-public sewer) that is not identified as a Main River. Flooding can occur from an ordinary watercourse overtopping its bank level due to the volume of water or because the channel or culverts become blocked. Ordinary watercourses in West Sussex are maintained by riparian/adjacent landowners, five Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs), the District and Boroughs, and West Sussex County Council.
Page | 24
100 The IDBs have a schedule of maintenance works. Similarly, riparian owners have responsibilities to maintain their stretch of watercourse. West Sussex County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority is responsible for undertaking consenting and enforcement on ordinary watercourses, and the District and Borough Councils have been delegated the consenting and initial enforcement role to link with their historic work and local planning role. Riparian owners have a responbililty to keep watercourses maintained and flowing freely. Together, the authorities ensure that work on ordinary watercourses is checked, approved, and that appropriate action is taken against landowners who undertake un-consented works or fail to carry out their responsibilities.
Coastal and Tidal Flooding
The coastline of West Sussex stretches from Hermitage, near Emsworth, to Southwick. High water caused by the tide, waves and storm surges can cause flooding to occur. Generally, where urban areas meet the coast the line is defended (Selsey, Shoreham, Worthing, Littlehampton, Bognor Regis), and where there is no property the coastline is managed in a semi-natural state. Areas at particular flood risk are the estuaries due to the tidal locking effect where river water and sea water meet. The Environment Agency and District and Borough Authorities manage the flood risk to coastal properties by managing the groynes and sea walls, replenishing the beach material and by maintaining the natural beach defence. Shoreline Management Plans guide the strategic management of the coastline. Investment is largely directed by coastal risk and erosion strategies that analyse the detail and consider project options. Within West Sussex there are currently seven strategies in progress or completed for coastal and tidal risk.
North Solent Shoreline Management Plan: Pagham Harbour Adaptive Management Study Pagham to East Head Strategy
Beachy Head to Selsey Bill Shoreline Management Plan Arun to Pagham Strategy Emsworth to East Head Strategy Arun to Adur Strategy Lower Tidal River Arun Strategy Shoreham to Brighton Marina Strategy
The work programme (Appendix D) that this strategy supports uses the outputs of these strategies so that the full picture of investment into flood risk is understood within the county.
Reservoir Flooding
Page | 25
101 The Government recognises that a major reservoir flood event could have a significant impact on the downstream area. Reservoirs in the UK have an extremely good safety record with no incidents resulting in the loss of life since 1925. Reservoirs are carefully maintained to prevent flooding.
The Environment Agency oversees reservoir safety and enforces the Reservoirs Act 1975 and is responsible as an enforcement authority for some 2,000 reservoirs in England and Wales. All large reservoirs must be inspected and supervised. The Environment Agency ensures that reservoirs are regularly inspected and essential safety work is carried out.
The two largest reservoirs in West Sussex are at Ardingly and Weir Wood. Local Resilience Forums (LRFs) undertake the engagement with downstream communities to plan for emergencies. The Pitt Report recommended that communities be provided with reservoir flood maps to enable the emergency services and other responders to assess risks and plan for contingency, warning and evacuation.
Sewer Flooding
Foul sewers carry flows from business and domestic water use, for example kitchen and bathroom waste, to a wastewater (sewage) treatment works. Treated effluent is then discharged to the environment (a local watercourse or the sea) under a consent granted by the Environment Agency. Foul sewers can overflow due to groundwater entering the pipes (infiltration) entering the pipes or through surface water overflowing the system (inundation). This can cause flooding which is contaminated with foul effluent.
Surface water sewers carry rainwater to a suitable discharge point such as a local watercourse or the sea. These discharges do not generally require treatment or a licence from the Environment Agency. Sewer flooding occurs when an increase in the amount of water entering the system is greater than the capacity of the system causing surcharging, or if blockages occur. Flooding is most likely to occur where the sewer has a dual purpose, carrying both surface water run-off and foul sewerage, termed a combined sewer.
Flooding from sewers is the responsibility of the Water and Sewerage Utility companies (Thames and Southern Water). Investment to improve the sewer network happens as part of the periodic price review that sets aside an agreed amount to be spent on reducing flood risk. Areas previously known to have experienced regular sewer flooding are Worthing and Durrington, the Manhood Peninsula, Barnham, North Lancing, Shoreham and Burgess Hill. Problems can also occur along the base of the South Downs because, when groundwater levels are high, sewers can overspill into local watercourses. The water company price review in 2014 is being agreed by the economic regulator Ofwat. This will determine investment to the sewer infrastructure over 2015 - 2020. Water Companies can contribute to flood risk projects being proposed by the Lead Local Flood Authority and other partners.
Page | 26
102 - The wet spots - areas susceptable to flooding
West Sussex County Council has identified 53 ‘wet spot’ areas in the county. Wet spots have been classified as areas where a significant number (generally greater than ten properties and/or businesses) of adjacent properties may be susceptible to flooding. These property counts include flats above ground floor level.
Each wet spot area susceptible to flood risk has a corresponding map, these form Appendix B. Each community is illustrated showing the best county wide assessment of surface, river and sea flood risk. Figure 4 shows the size of the risk in terms of the quantity of housing with risk areas, and, whether the main risk is from surface water, from the rivers and the sea, or from a combination of sources.
The distribution of the wet spots in West Sussex falls into three main areas. The concentration of wet spots in Chichester District is due to the low lying land of the coastal plain. Secondly the major risk areas are the large inland towns where surface water flooding, river flooding or a combination of both can cause property to flood. Thirdly, the coastal strip of communities form a row of urban areas that are affected by both the tides and the draining of water from inland.
These locations have been highlighted in previous plans, notably Catchment Flood Management Plans, Shoreline Management Plans, the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment and the June 2012 Flood Report. The modelled flooding data does not account for future climate change, but instead gives a flood outline of a large event with present day circumstances.
The locations are listed alphabetically in Figure 6 (page 31). Numbers of properties are reported according to which flood map they fall within (Figures 2 and 3 on page 21 and 22). Some properties fall within both maps, and are counted as ‘combined risk’ in the dark blue column in Figure 6. To help the reader understand this table it is necessary to read the ‘What is the likelihood of flooding happening and what does this mean?’ section at the start of Chapter 1. The flood risk has been assessed by considering the following size flood events: Surface water flooding assessed from a 1 in 200 year rainfall event (0.5% annual probability rainfall event), the surface mapping simulates flooding accounting for drainage and the build environment; River flooding assessed from a 1 in 200 year flood event (0.5% annual probability river flood event), the river flooding mapping simulates flooding including the current benefit from drainage and defences; Sea flooding assessed from a 1 in 200 year flood event (0.5% annual probability sea flood event), the sea flooding mapping simulates flooding including the current benefit from drainage and defences.
Page | 27
103 Data from each of the seven Districts and Boroughs has been considered. Mapping has been produced (Appendix B) to show where areas susceptible to flooding exist. The maps indicate the main risk from surface water, the rivers and the sea. For the purposes of this Strategy the Environment Agency’s groundwater map has been considered but is not published in the mapped communities. The wet spots have been selected to include those areas that are susceptible to groundwater flooding, and the property count of the surface water statistics can be taken to include groundwater risk areas.
The wet spots identified across the county are linked to actions in the work programme so that West Sussex County Council can track progress and the location of investment over the lifetime of the strategy. In the work programme significant existing flood risk projects or historic flood risk management is also referenced by wet spot so that improvements already undertaken can be understood.
The method of identifying wet spots uses the most up to date county wide mapping that exists, and the most recent flood reports. These two sources provide the basis for identifying the highest risk areas. There are many isolated properties at flood risk in the county that are outside of these cluster areas. The strategy has focused on cluster areas because funding for capital projects requires a high cost benefit ratio that is generally not met by single residential property projects. Single buildings providing public benefit, for example hospitals, are given high priority. The strategy supports household property level protection (PLP) measures. Work is currently being undertaken by the Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder Scheme (2013-2015) to look at how property level protection can be implemented as well as other local resilience work.
Issues in these areas will be identified through the West Sussex County Council’s new flood investigatory role and ordinary watercourse consenting and enforcement responsibilities. The other Risk Management Authorities, local flood groups or parish councils should also bring flooding and maintenance issues to the attention of West Sussex County Council as Local Lead Flood Authority.
All of the wet spot areas feature in the West Sussex Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA), and in the West Sussex County Council Report on June 2012 Flood Event (Nov 2012). They include all areas at risk from river and sea flooding as identified by the latest Environment Agency flood mapping. The wet spots have been considered by local experts at the District and Borough level, the County Council, Southern Water and by the Environment Agency. Historic events and previous flooding issues have been taken into account and have contributed to the West Sussex wet spot list.
The purple and light blue areas are areas susceptible to flood risk. They are shown on each wet spot map and reflect where the flood risk exists, and why the area was identified as having clusters of properties within risk areas. Information shown on the maps includes the river obstructions such as weirs, dams, and the drainage network of rivers, canals and lakes.
Over page, Figure 4: The West Sussex ‘Wet Spot’ Flood Map
Page | 28
104
Page | 29
105 Figure 5: The Appendix B ‘Wet Spot’ Flood Map Information
Example Wet Spot
Number of Number of properties at
properties at combined risk surface water risk in 1 in 200
year event
Number of properties at river and sea risk in
1 in 200 year event
Figure 6 gives the full list of wet spots in West Sussex. The purple column (numbered 1) represents property numbers solely at surface water flood risk. This is flood risk posed from rainfall that is yet to reach a natural channel or sewer (the model accounts for drainage and buildings). The light blue column (numbered 2) represents property solely at river and sea risk. This is flood risk posed from rivers bursting their banks and from sea storms, surges and high tides (the model accounts for existing sea and river defences). The dark blue column (numbered 3) represents the property at risk from both sources. The total risk for the community (column 4) equals each number summed (the example in Figure 5 is 65 + 30 + 10 = 105 properties at risk). The numbers of properties are derived from address data and have been rounded to the nearest five properties, except where less than five properties are at risk.
Page | 30
106 Figure 6: The West Sussex ‘Wet Spot’ areas and the number of residential properties and businesses susceptible to flood risk by flood source (including flats above ground floor level) 1 2 3 4
Wet Spots Surface River and Combined Water Flood Sea Flood Flood Risk* (Priority wet Risk* (no. of Risk* (no of (no. of TOTAL Area spots are properties) properties) properties) (no. of
marked) properties) * property * property only * property only within both within surface within river/sea surface & water risk map risk map river/sea water risk maps Aldingbourne, Westergate & Arun District 300 110 85 495 Eastergate
Aldwick Arun District 275 0 0 275
Angmering Arun District 550 5 60 615
Arundel Arun District 215 15 0 230
Barnham & Arun District 400 200 100 700 hhhhWalberton
Horsham Billingshurst 25 625 District 600 0
Chichester Birdham 0 25 District 25 0
Bognor Regis & Arun District 900 1200 200 2300 jjjjjjjFelpham
Chichester Bosham 0 150 District 50 100
Bramber & Horsham 0 385 Upper Beeding District 325 60
Mid Sussex Burgess Hill 0 2501 District 2500 1
Chichester Charlton 10 35 District 25 0
Page | 31
107 Chichester Chichester 95 2230 District 1750 385
Chichester Chidham 10 40 District 15 15
Mid Sussex Copthorne 75 280 District 75 130
Crawley Crawley 425 10050 Borough 9000 625
Chichester Earnley & 50 145 0 195 hhhhBracklesham District
Chichester East Dean 1 31 District 30 0
Mid Sussex East Grinstead 0 2200 District 2200 0
East Preston Arun District 400 0 0 400
East Chichester 25 195 Wittering District 25 145
Ferring Coast & Arun District 60 90 Rife 30 0
Chichester Fishbourne 0 185 District 180 5
Mid Sussex Hassocks 55 685 District 525 105 Haywards Mid Sussex Heath & 100 2300 District 2200 0 Lindfield Horsham Horsham 0 4000 District 4000 0
Chichester Hunston 0 40 District 35 5
Littlehampton Arun District 1200 1200 240 2640
Littlehampton West & Arun District 35 180 10 225 Climping Chichester Loxwood 5 65 District 55 5
Page | 32
108 Middleton- on-Sea & Arun District 150 295 25 470 hhhhElmer
Chichester Midhurst 35 665 District 600 30
North Mundham Chichester 5 55 & Runcton District 20 30
Chichester Oving 0 51 District 50 1
Pagham & Arun District 35 350 hhhhNyetimber 170 145
Horsham Pulborough 10 335 District 325 0
Rustington Arun District 550 0 0 550
Sayers Mid Sussex 0 50 Common District 50 0
Chichester Selsey (West) 30 530 District 350 150
Chichester Selsey East 50 875 District 300 525 Shoreham & Adur District 4500 2400 650 7550 hhhhLancing Chichester Sidlesham 5 205 District 55 145
Chichester Singleton 15 90 District 75 0
Sompting Adur District 1100 0 0 1100
Southbourne, Chichester Hermitage & 35 340 District 200 105 Nutbourne Horsham Southwater 0 700 District 700 0
Horsham Storrington 25 550 District 525 0
Tangmere & Chichester 0 350 Boxgrove District 350 0
Page | 33
109 Chichester Thorney 0 170 District 25 145
Chichester West Itchenor 5 30 District 10 15
Chichester West Wittering 0 56 District 55 1
Chichester Westbourne 10 260 District 250 0
Worthing Worthing 8750 1350 300 10400
What are the priority areas at risk?
Ten wet spot locations have been prioritised (marked with a in table 6) based on the modelling, the historical risk and the existing programme of work. The priority wet spots will be considered first for flood risk reduction or investigation work by the risk management authorities. This prioritisation does not mean funding is available, or has been agreed, nor does it exclude important work from happening elsewhere if a good cost benefit is achieved. The priorities will be reviewed as progress is made.
The prioritised locations will promote the areas and allow risk management authorities to consider partnership funding and implementation. Difficult decisions will need to be taken, because there is not enough money to carry out the entire work programme. The priority wet spots highlight those areas that contain groups of properties deemed most at risk, and, that are most vulnerable to flooding.
Page | 34
110
Adur District
The Adur District contains the Shoreham-by-Sea & Lancing and Sompting wet spots. Both contain significant property numbers that are at risk of flooding from combined sources (river, sea and surface water flooding). Together a very large number of properties are in risk areas, largely from surface water flooding, but added to significantly by coastal flooding.
The area is predominantly urban, underlain by chalk geology with a flat topography. The wet spots are heavily influenced by the tides and coastal defences can be overtopped from purely tidal influence. The River Adur is unlikely to overtop from just heavy rainfall, but a combination of a heavy rainfall event and a high tide could cause significant flooding. Surface water flooding generated by run-off from the South Downs can cause flooding to property in Bramber, Lancing and Sompting, the Shoreham airport and West Beach Estate. The key flood risk prevention assets in the District include the existing Adur tidal wall embankments, and the coastal defences that afford Shoreham and Lancing protection. The District maintains the Lancing Brook network. The Internal Drainage Board, District Council and the Environment Agency carries out channel maintenance work on local watercourses north of the A27 to maintain good flow.
Arun District
The Arun District contains thirteen wet spots that are susceptible to surface water, river water and/or sea flooding. These areas stretch across the coastal plain from Ferring in the east to Pagham in the west. Bognor Regis & Felpham (river and sea) and Littlehampton (surface water risk, river and sea) contain the highest numbers at risk. Middleton-on-Sea & Elmer on the coastal plain include significant property numbers at risk from the sea should an extreme event occur. Barnham & Walberton and Angmering have high property numbers at risk from surface water flooding and from combined sources.
The area is generally low lying topography with poorly drained and often waterlogged soils. The River Arun flows south through the centre of the district, with the Aldingbourne Rife, Ferring Rife, and Elmer Rife, and the upper parts of the Pagham Rife further draining the district. Some streams are tide locked as they drain into the English Channel. The characteristics of the district mean that surface water ponding and water logging due to high groundwater or extreme rainfall events can cause flooding. Groundwater flooding can also occur along a spring line across the coastal plain. Tide locking, under capacity or blockages within the drainage network also contribute towards flooding. The key management of flooding in the district is the coastal protection works, the maintenance of embankments and walls on the River Arun, and the work that maintains sufficient flow in the rivers, watercourses, ditches and urban drainage network.
Page | 35
111
Chichester District
Chichester District has twenty-four wet spots susceptible to flooding from surface water, groundwater, sea and river flooding. The most significant risk is in Chichester from surface water and combined sources. Many clusters of properties in coastal and surface water risk areas exist across the Manhood Peninsula, rural Chichester Harbour area and south of the Downs. The area is very popular with holidaymakers. Due to the significantly higher local population during the holiday season the numbers of people at risk becomes a greater task to manage.
In the north of the district the River Rother drains the Low Weald rural area from west to east through Midhurst. Midhurst is mainly at risk from surface water flooding. In the south of the district the groundwater fed River Lavant drains through Chichester. When groundwater levels are high, this wet spot can flood from a combination of the river, surface water and drainage network pinch points. The area can become seasonally water logged causing surface water ponding due to the low lying topography and high water table. Groundwater flooding occurs most regularly through the Lavant valley, notably at Charlton, East Dean and Singleton.
Channel maintenance is carried out by riparian owners, the Internal Drainage Board and the Environment Agency in the district. The main flood defence features are the diversion channel at Chichester, channel clearance and pumped drainage from the peninsula, and the drainage through the coastal defences into the sea.
Crawley Borough
Crawley has one wet spot made up of the urban area susceptible to surface water flood risk. This wet spot includes approximately 10,000 residential and business properties at flood risk from mainly surface water risk. Flood risk is also posed from the River Mole, from culverted watercourses, and from sewer flooding. The risk of flooding comes after a heavy rainfall event when constrictions within this drainage system cause water to back up, overtop a channel or pond in an area.
Crawley is situated in the upper part of the Mole Catchment that drains north into the Thames. Historically the River Mole and its tributary the Gatwick Stream have come out of bank and flooded, and there are a number of recorded incidents that have damaged property. Two other tributaries exist, the Ifield Brook and Crawters Brook. The Borough contains two water reservoirs the Tilgate and Titmus Lakes. Most of the flood defences in Crawley are earth embankments, and there is a diversion channel on the Gatwick Stream. While Crawley is a new town, the drainage network can experience problems with its culverted watercourses that can block or reach capacity.
Page | 36
112
Horsham District
The Horsham District contains six wet spots that are susceptible to surface water and river flooding; Horsham, Pulborough, Storrington, Southwater, Bramber & Upper Beeding and Billingshurst. Surface water flood risk poses the most likely flood risk in each of these areas. Horsham represents the largest cluster of properties in areas susceptible to flooding from a rare rainfall event. Storrington and Southwater are susceptible to surface water flooding, and to a lesser extent Billingshurst and Pulborough. River flooding contributes to the surface water flood risk in Beeding and Bramber.
These wet spot areas are set within the Weald of Sussex underlain by sandstone and mudstone geology, and are drained by the urban sewer network and the River Arun and Rother. Serious flooding would only be expected during large-scale infrequent rainfall events, when overland flow would occur from rapid runoff and with a short response time. Flooding would occur from excess surface water run-off that cannot drain, and to a lesser degree from inundation directly from the local watercourses. The main rivers through urban areas are mainly undefended but some walls and channel straightening has occurred. The urban drainage network is maintained routinely and also on a reactive basis to ensure surface water can drain.
Mid Sussex District
Mid Sussex contains six significant clusters of properties that are at risk of flooding. These are Burgess Hill, Copthorne, Hassocks, Haywards Heath & Lindfield, East Grinstead, and Sayers Common. The most significant clusters of properties are located in the urban centres, particularly Haywards Heath and Burgess Hill. Purely surface water flooding is known to exist in East Grinstead and on a smaller scale in Sayers Common. Properties are largely at risk from surface water flooding Hassocks.
In the centre of the District the River Ouse drains east into neighbouring Lewes District, and in the south, the Adur drains west into Horsham District. Brighton and Hove borders Mid Sussex to the South. The villages and isolated properties in the rural landscape of Mid Sussex are generally at low flood risk. It is the urban areas that are more susceptible to flooding where surface water flooding, urban drainage problems and ordinary watercourses flooding pose a risk to property. Heavy rainfall events can cause flooding in these areas. The defences in the District consist of a mixture of maintained and culverted channels. These defences are maintained and clearance are carried out by the Environment Agency, Landowners and the District Council.
Page | 37
113
Worthing Borough
Worthing District contains the Worthing wet spot covering the low lying coastal urban area. The flood risk in Worthing is posed by surface water and the sea. If an extreme rainfall event was to occur thousands of properties would be in risk areas in the town. Only in a very rare tidal and storm event would Worthing be expected to flood from the sea.
Worthing District is largely urban and is bordered by the Ferring Rife to the west and Teville Stream to the east. There are a number of ordinary watercourses that drain the two catchments. The risk of flooding is posed from a combination of groundwater, sewer, surface water run-off and coastal wave overtopping. Drainage is comprised of rainfall run-off from the South Downs and rainfall that falls on the urban area. When either or both of these inputs are high then flooding to property can occur. The low lying coastal fringe of Worthing is at risk of flooding from the sea. When groundwater is high Goring and Durrington can be susceptible to flooding. Surface water contributes significantly to the flood risk in Worthing due the urban nature of the area, and due to the drainage being compromised high tides, groundwater or blockages.
Page | 38
114 Chapter 2- Roles and Responsibilities
Background and National Context
In England, 5.2 million properties are at risk of flooding. Of these, 1.4 million are at risk from rivers or the sea alone, 2.8 million are at risk from surface water alone and 1 million are at risk from both sources. The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 requires upper and unitary councils to be Lead Local Flood Authorities and manage surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses. The Flood and Water Management Act is an important part of how the Government reacted to the 2007 floods and subsequent Pitt Report (2008). Pitt’s recommendations called for urgent and fundamental changes to the way the country was adapting to increased flooding.
Figure 7: Properties at risk nationally by flooding source (source: Environment Agency)
Combined risk
Surface Water Sea & River
Flood Risk Flood Risk
Lead Local Flood Authorities, IDBs and District and Borough Councils effectively join the Environment Agency in a partnership to manage flood risk across all sources. Any combination of sources of flooding could exist in an area so partnership working and joint projects are expected.
The national and local strategies are at the forefront of this change, putting new ways of working into practice. The local strategies across England set out how people, communities,
Page | 39
115 business and the public sector should work together. They are enabling Lead Local Flood Authorities and other risk management authorities to plan for the future.
Flood and coastal erosion management requires difficult decisions to be taken on where risk management activities are carried out both at national and local levels. This prioritisation process and the decisions taken are to be guided by six principles published in the National Strategy for England.
• Community focus and partnership working 1
The flood risk management authorities (West Sussex County Council, the seven District and Borough Councils, the Environment Agency, the four Internal Drainage Boards, the Highways Agency and Thames and Southern Water) will work in partnership with communities to understand the community perspective of flooding, help communities understand and actively prepare for the risks and encourage them to have direct involvement in decision making and risk management actions. Partnership working is also required to ensure that risk is managed in a coordinated way beyond authority boundaries, for example across catchments, with adjacent lead local flood authorities working together.
• A catchment and coastal cell approach 2
In understanding and managing flood and coastal risks locally, it is essential to consider the impacts on other areas that are affected or connected to what happens in that area. This whole connected area is known as a catchment. Similarly the UK coastline is divided into a series of coastal areas known as ‘cells’ to ensure a coordinated management approach. Authorities must seek to avoid passing risk on to others within the catchment or adjacent coastal cells without prior agreement. These agreements could potentially include the provision of funding by upstream communities for actions and measures carried out by others to manage the downstream risks. This principle asks all risk management authorities to consider the catchment or coastal cell as a whole to ensure the best outcome for the related parts.
• Sustainability 3
Flood risk management authorities should support communities by managing risks in ways that take account of all impacts and the whole-life costs of investment in risk management.
Page | 40
116 The risk management solutions should be forward-looking, and utilise the latest thinking regarding Water Sensitive Urban Design and Green Infrastructure. Solutions should take account of potential risks that may arise in the future and be adaptable to climate change. They should also work with natural processes where possible and enhance the environment.
• Proportionate, risk-based approaches 4
It is not technically, economically or environmentally feasible to prevent flooding altogether. A risk-based management approach targets resources to those areas where they have greatest effect. Risk management measures consider both the probability over time of a flood happening and the consequences that might arise if it did, for example by assessing the damages that arise from floods. Solutions should be appropriate in complexity and cost to the level of flood risk.
• Multiple benefits 5
As well as reducing the risks to people and property, which is the primary concern, flood risk management can bring significant economic, environmental and social benefits. It can enhance and protect the built, cultural heritage, biodiversity, rural and natural environments by preventing loss and damage to habitats and heritage assets and reducing pollution, for example, through the use of Water Sensitive Urban Design and Green Infrastructure. It can contribute to regeneration and income generation, protect infrastructure and transport links and contribute to economic growth.
• Beneficiaries should be encouraged to invest in risk
6 management
The benefits achieved when flood risks are managed are in many cases localised and lead to personal or private gain through the protection of specific individuals, communities and businesses. They can also be public, through the reduction of future costs to society arising from incident recovery. The Government is keen to ensure that wherever possible alternative sources of funding can be secured in each area to reflect the local benefits that would be delivered. Any funding found locally can supplement the amounts available nationally and mean as many communities as possible can be protected.
Page | 41
117
Local Context
Environment Agency Lead Local Flood Authorities Sea Groundwater
Main River Surface water Reservoir Ordinary Coastal Erosion watercourses
Figure 8: Who oversees which types of flooding?
Under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 West Sussex County Council has the responsibility for developing, maintaining and applying a local flood risk management strategy within the county. It is intended that local authorities should reflect the content, guiding principles, aims and objectives of the national strategy in the development of their local flood risk management strategies.
West Sussex County Council will not be working in isolation. A range of partner authorities known as risk management authorities also have flood and coastal erosion management duties, powers and responsibility. The development of this strategy required input from designated ‘flood management authorities’. In West Sussex the other flood risk management authorities are the Environment Agency, the five Internal Drainage Boards (Upper Medway, Ouse, Arun, Adur and South West Sussex), the Highways Agency, Southern Water Services Ltd, Thames Water Utilities Ltd and the seven District and Borough Councils.
In West Sussex, Southern Water Services Ltd and Thames Water Utilities Ltd are responsible for managing public sewers, and for resolving flooding issues where there is no significant interaction with other types of flooding. The seven District and Borough Councils in the county are an important part of flood risk management are risk management authorities in their own right, and, all take an active role in assisting the Lead Local Flood Authority in performing some Flood and Water Management Act duties.
Page | 42
118
Environment Lead Local Flood
Agency Authority (West Sussex
County Council) Sea Main River Groundwater Highways Private Reservoir Surface water land Agency Erosion Ordinary watercourses Highway owners Trunk road Internal Watercourses Highway Drainage Southern District &
Boards /Thames Authority Boroughs IDD Ordinary Water Ordinary Road watercourses watercourses Drainage Public sewers Erosion Roles and Responsibilities
Figure 9: Who manages what within West Sussex?
The Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs) carry out maintenance works within their Internal Drainage District (IDD). Four of the five IDBs are operated by the Environment Agency (the Ouse, Arun, Adur and South West Sussex). The fifth IDB (Upper Medway) covers a small area within the county near East Grinstead and is independently managed. At the time of writing in 2013 an Environment Agency review into the management of Internal Drainage Districts was underway which may change the current set up.
Flood risk management responsibilities
This strategy clarifies the roles and responsibilities for local flood risk, and the duties and permissive powers that flood risk management authorities have. It also builds on the existing partnerships developed in West Sussex. The strategy also provides a framework for local communities to develop local partnerships and solutions.
Under the provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act the following duties are common to all risk management authorities:
- Duty to cooperate with other risk management authorities
- Duty to act consistently with the national and local strategies
- Powers to take on flood risk functions from another risk management authority
Page | 43
119 - Duty to contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development
- Duty to be subject to scrutiny from the Lead Local Flood Authority’s democratic process.
West Sussex County Council (Lead Local Flood Authority)
The responsibilities of the county council as Lead Local Flood Authority and as a risk management authority are to:
- Provide leadership of local flood risk management authorities;
- Develop, maintain, apply and monitor a strategy for local flood risk;
- Permissive power to do works to manage flood risk from surface water runoff or groundwater;
- Permissive power to request information from any person in connection with the authorities flood risk management functions;
- Permissive power to exercise the Land Drainage Act 1991;
- Perform as a Category 1 responder to flood incident under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, including dealing with recovery and resulting homelessness;
- A duty to investigate and publish reports on flood incidents in West Sussex (where appropriate and necessary) to identify which authorities have relevant flood risk management functions, and what they have done or intend to do;
- A duty to maintain a register of structures or features that have a significant effect on flood risk;
- Permissive power to designate structures and features with flood risk significance;
- Responsibility (once enacted) for the sustainable drainage systems approving body with responsibility for approval, adoption, inspection and maintenance of new sustainable drainage systems;
- Decision making and enforcement responsibility for whether third party works on ordinary watercourses by third parties, that may affect water flow, can take place;
- A duty to contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development in the exercise of flood risk management functions and to have regard to any ministerial guidance on this topic.
Page | 44
120 West Sussex Highways Authority (part of West Sussex County Council)
The responsibility of the West Sussex Highways Authority is to:
- Undertake routine and reactive maintenance on all roads (except the A27 and M23/A23 that are the responsibility of the Highways Agency), including associated drainage provided by gullies, drains and culverts.
- Provide advice on road and road drainage issues associated with proposed development, ensuring any impact on the road network is taken into account;
- Decide whether improvements to the transport network are needed, based on access to local facilities, and the possible effects of a development on road safety and congestion.
Environment Agency
The Environment Agency has the following roles and responsibilities as a risk management authority:
- A strategic overview of all types of flooding;
- Responsible for flood risk management on main rivers and the coast;
- A coastline erosion risk management authority, under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010;
- Responsible for Environment Agency reservoirs, and, to regulate and enforce the Reservoirs Act 1975 on other reservoirs with capacity over 10000m³;
- Duty to be subject to scrutiny from Lead Local Flood Authorities;
- Carrying out flood risk management functions in a consistent manor with the national and local strategies, reporting to ministers on flood risk management and implementation of strategies;
- Permissive power to request information for any person in relation to flood risk management concerning Environment Agency functions;
- Permissive power to designate structures and features with flood risk significance;
- To be a statutory consultee to the Sustainable Drainage Systems Approving Body;
- To be a statutory consultee to local planning authorities on flood risk matters;
Page | 45
121 - Perform as a Category 1 responder to flood incident under the Civil Contingencies Act;
- Consent and enforce applications for works on main river;
- A duty to contribute to sustainable development through flood risk management functions.
Internal Drainage Boards
Internal Drainage Boards have the following roles and responsibilities as a risk management authority:
- Carry out maintenance work to maintain drainage;
- Use statutory powers to ensure those responsible maintain the flow of water in a watercourse and to modify or remove inappropriate structures within channels. Take the appropriate action against those who inappropriately modify the watercourse;
- Responsible for reservoirs over 10000m³ capacity;
- Permissive power to exercise the Land Drainage Act 1991;
- A duty to contribute towards sustainable development;
- Permissive power to undertake flood risk management works;
- Undertake consenting on ordinary watercourse within their boundary;
- Be a statutory consultee on the Sustainable Drainage Systems Approving Body;
- Work alongside and together with neighbouring Internal Drainage Districts;
- Duty to be scrutinised from Lead Local Flood Authority democratic processes;
- Duty to act consistently with the Local and National Strategy;
- Permissive power to designate structures and features with flood risk significance.
Southern Water and Thames Water
Southern Water and Thames Water have the following roles and responsibilities as a risk management authority:
- Duty to adopt new build sewers;
Page | 46
122 - Manage public sewer flooding;
- Duty to subject to scrutiny from Lead Local Flood Authority democratic process;
- Duty to have regard for the National and Local Strategies;
- Perform as a Category 2 responder to flood incidents under the Civil Contingencies Act.
The District and Borough Councils (Second Tier Authorities)
The Districts and Boroughs have the following roles and responsibilities as a risk management authority:
- Permissive power to designate structures and features with flood risk significance;
- Duty to act consistently with the Local and National Strategy;
- A coastline erosion risk management authority, under the Coastal Protection Act 1949;
- Duty to be subject to scrutiny from Lead Local Flood Authority democratic process;
- Permissive power to exercise parts of the Land Drainage Act 1991 (except in an Internal Drainage District) area;
- Perform as a Category 1 responder to flood incidents under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, including dealing with recovery and resulting homelessness;
- Perform as the local planning authority and a duty to encourage the appropriate development and promote sustainable development;
- Under delegated powers, use statutory powers to ensure those responsible maintain the flow of water in a watercourse and to modify or remove inappropriate structures within channels. Take the appropriate action against those who inappropriately modify the watercourse.
Highways Agency
The Highways Agency has the following roles and responsibilities as a risk management authority:
- Duty to have regard for the National and Local Strategies;
Page | 47
123 - Responsibility to maintain the highway trunk road network under the Highways Act (in West Sussex the A23, M23 and A27) and for these roads;
- Duty to regularly inspect and maintain highways structures;
- Permissive powers to deliver works to protect the highway from flooding (for example, draining roads into private watercourses);
- Carry out maintenance and improvement works to maintain existing standards of protection for highways;
- A duty to contribute towards sustainable development.
Other Stakeholders
While not designated flood risk authorities, stakeholders such as infrastructure providers, riparian owners, parishes and residents have a key part to play in flood risk management.
Utility and infrastructure providers
While not risk management authorities, utility companies play an important role in flood risk management. Many assets of utility companies are in areas prone to flooding. Ensuring that the service the company provides is resilient to flooding can save the company money in the long term, so flooding is an important factor in investment and planning. Companies can achieve savings if they contribute to partnership schemes. This approach provides mutual benefit for those involved and ensures services for the public and businesses are more resilient.
Riparian Owners
Home or business owners that live close to a river or ditch are likely to be riparian owners with maintenance rights and responsibilities. If the watercourse borders the property it is normal for the boundary of responsibility to extend to half way across the channel. Maintenance responsibilities include keeping the channel clear of obstructions, and maintaining a free flow of water in the watercourse.
The key message to riparian owners is, you must let water flow through your land without any obstruction that may affect the rights of others. Importantly, you should keep the banks and bed of the ditch clear of anything that could cause an obstruction and increase flood risk. More details can be found on the West Sussex County Council or Environment Agency
Page | 48
124 websites by searching for ‘riparian ownership’. The Environment Agency’s ‘Living on the Edge’ document provides a full guide and is available online.
Risk management authorities take every opportunity to communicate publically about riparian responsibilities. The Parish and Town Councils can play a key role in supporting local knowledge and communicating the rights and responsibilities to communities. If you have a watercourse within your property boundary, such as river, brook, beck, ditch, mill stream or culvert, and are unsure on its maintenance please seek advice via the Living on the Edge document. Full contact details are available should you wish to speak to an advisor.
Any works to construct in or over a watercourse or alter the channel may require Ordinary Watercourse Consent. Please contact your local District or Borough Council for more information, or visit the West Sussex County Council website.
Parish and Town Councils
Town and Parish Councils can make a significant contribution before and during a flood event. Coordinated assistance can be critical in supporting local residents and in providing the shelter for neighbours who have experienced flooding. Parish and Town Council members can also play a crucial role in the dissemination of flood alerts and flood warnings, as they have the local knowledge of the community. This local knowledge can also be used to inform the District or Borough Council or County Council about sources of flooding.
An affective Parish or Town Council will have an emergency plan, and an agreed process in place to react to a natural disaster. For more information please contact your District or Borough Emergency Planning Officer who will be able to provide guidance. For other advice please contact the West Sussex County Council Community and Economic Development Team (please see page 60 for areas covered) who will direct your query to the appropriate lead officer.
Property owners and residents
It is home owners and business owner’s responsibility to protect their property from risks, including flood water protection. It’s impossible to completely flood-proof a property but there are lots of things you can do to reduce flood damage. More details can be found on the Environment Agency website by searching for ‘prepare your property for flooding’.
Page | 49
125 LLFA Responsibilities under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010
Strategic leadership
West Sussex County Council chair the strategic leadership group that was formed in response to the new flood responsibilities commenced by the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. The group is comprised of the risk management authorities within West Sussex County, and meets quarterly with elected members to ensure that a joint management approach is taken.
To provide a framework for the strategic leadership role West Sussex County Council are required to produce a strategy to direct flood risk management and ways of working in accordance with legislation. The work programme identified by this strategy schedules future projects that investigate flooding solutions or reduce the risk of flooding to residents in West Sussex. The work programme will be monitored to enable forward planning, and ensure future projects are ready in time for the following years programme.
Permissive Powers to reduce surface and groundwater flooding
West Sussex County Council, similarly to the Environment Agency and the District and Borough Councils, have permissive powers to construct works to protect people and property where these are economically justified. These West Sussex County Council powers are not a legal obligation, but indicate the authority to manage flood risk from surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses if desired. In a similar way the Environment Agency has powers but not a legal obligation to manage main rivers and the coast. There is no right to flood or erosion protection, except in very limited circumstances.
The term ‘permissive powers’ relates to certain legal powers. A risk management authority may choose to intervene in the public interest, where they believe works would be beneficial and / or economically viable, but has legal duty to do so. This recognises that risk management authorities have finite resources and so must prioritise how to use them.
Requesting information
This partnership of risk management authorities ensures that data and information is shared across organisations. The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 gives West Sussex County Council powers to request information related to its flooding responsibilities. It is expected that the risk management authorities within West Sussex County Council boundary share data on request.
Page | 50
126 Duty to investigate flooding
From April 2011 onwards West Sussex County Council has had a duty to undertake flood investigations after an incident occurs, where it deems necessary. The investigation must set out which risk management authority should lead the review, establish the reasons for the flood, and whether the response was appropriate. If flooding has occurred to more than ten properties in one incident, then a full investigation will be triggered. Depending on the circumstances of smaller flooding events, an initial investigation may still be required for flooding of less than ten properties.
West Sussex County Council has already commenced an investigation into the flooding that occurred in June 2012. The Council formed a multi agency group comprising the Environment Agency, Southern Water, Arun District Council, Chichester District Council, and Worthing Borough Council to investigate the flooding. It was identified that in the vast majority of cases flooding occurred simply due to the exceptionally high volume of rainfall. The process also highlighted some limitations in the management of drainage and the drainage infrastructure itself. Some of this work has been completed already, some is in the process of being resolved, and in some areas further detailed work is required. This investigation report has been published on the West Sussex County Council website.
West Sussex flood asset register
The duty to produce and maintain a flood asset register commenced in April 2011. Assets are defined as structures that in the opinion of the Lead Local Flood Authority are likely to have a significant effect on flood risk. West Sussex County Council have used Defra guidance and local expertise in District and Borough Councils to collate this data.
The information will be added to the Environment Agency’s online Asset Information Management System (AIMS) program from 2016 to which West Sussex County Council will have access. AIMS will map these drainage assets (over and underground), and include a record of their ownership and condition.
Power to designate structures
West Sussex County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority, the districts and boroughs, and the Environment Agency now have powers to designate third party and privately owned artificial or natural features that are important for flood or erosion risk management. Designation means that a feature may not be altered, replaced or removed without consent. Designated features will be added to the asset register that is maintained by West Sussex County Council.
Page | 51
127 Sustainable drainage systems approving body (SAB)
Increasing urbanisation and development has caused problems with increased run-off after sudden or prolonged rain. As areas of vegetation are replaced by impermeable concrete, tarmac or roofed areas the ground loses its ability to absorb rainwater. This rain is instead directed into existing surface water and highway drainage systems, often overloading them and causing floods. The idea behind sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) is to try to replicate natural systems. The designs use cost effective solutions with low environmental impact to drain away surface water run-off naturally using different techniques. The water is released slowly back into the environment, such as into watercourses or by infiltration into the ground.
Approval of SuDS is presently undertaken by District and Borough Councils through the planning process. At the time of writing (2013) the commencement date for a seperate approving body (within LLFAs) to oversee installation of SuDS has not yet been confirmed by Defra. The intention is to oversee the design and installation of SuDS into all housing developments so that surface water flooding is managed by design. The introduction of this body will help move the industry closer toward the goal of water-sensitive urban design (WSUD). WSUD is a land planning and engineering design approach which integrates the urban water cycle, including stormwater, groundwater and wastewater management and water supply, into urban design to minimise environmental degradation and improve aesthetic and recreational appeal.
West Sussex County Council as part of the South East Seven Group is developing the new role, including a master plan as to how the SuDS Approving Bodies may operate. In summary:
- The SuDS aproval process will need to work together with planning;
- Water Sensitive Urban Design and Green Infrastructure should inform all projects and infrastructure design;
- A developer will require SuDS consent before building to ensure the correct SuDS technique is employed for the local ground conditions;
- The approval, adoption and future maintenance of the SuDS will be undertaken by West Sussex County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority (as of 2013 the process for this is still under development);
- The District and Boroughs will continue to perform as the local planning authorities;
Ordinary watercourse consenting
Consenting of works by third parties on ordinary watercourses under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 were transferred from the Environment Agency to the Lead Local Flood Authorities. The consenting role for West Sussex County Council commenced in April 2012.
Page | 52
128 Consent is refused if the works (a dam, weir, culvert, mill or other obstruction) would result in an increase in flood risk or adversely affect nature conservation. An application can be made using a form that is available on the West Sussex County Council website.
The consenting role is being undertaken by the seven District and Borough Councils in West Sussex, following delegation from West Sussex County Council. The District and Boroughs or West Sussex County Council can undertake works on ordinary watercourses, except in an Internal Drainage District, where the Internal Drainage Board manage the consenting process.
Enforcement
The planning process is supported by enforcement that ensures development is built in accordance with approved plans. The County Council and District and Boroughs are each responsible for the enforcement of their responsibilities. At county level this includes ordinary watercourse enforcement, and at the District and Borough Councils this includes planning enforcement. The new sustainable drainage approval will also require enforcement in cases where there is a failure to build a developments drainage design in accordance with approved plans. In these cases officers will need to agree a solution or take enforcement action to put right any unauthorised works.
Sustainable development
Defra guidance on sustainable development in relation to flood and coastal erosion risk management functions defines some of the ways in which West Sussex County Council will contribute. The key topics supported in this strategy are:
- Tackling climate change and to use techniques that enhance the natural environment
- Promote fairness in improving the wellbeing of communities
- Use green economic and operations decisions
- Use sound science to develop solutions
- To be transparent and be accountable to the public
- Using techniques and solutions which don’t prevent future generations from meeting their own needs and effectively managing their own flood risk
Page | 53
129 Responsibilities outside of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010
Actions as a result of the June 2012 flooding in West Sussex
The local flood risk management strategy supports all findings and recommendations from the West Sussex County Council Flood Report. The flood report recommends actions for each risk management authority and further investigations where more information is needed. Actions from the flood report form part of the works programme of this strategy. The work programme will be considered by the risk management authorities on a priority basis.
Requirements under the EU Flood Directive: Flood Risk Regulations 2009
The Flood and Water Management Act must be considered alongside the EU Flood Directive that was transposed into UK law as the Flood Risk Regulations on the 10th of December 2009. The Flood Risk Regulations require three types of assessment to be carried out in England; the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment, Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps, and, Flood Risk Management Plans.
Planning
The District and Borough Councils are the responsible authorities for managing planning control and making decisions on what will or will not be granted planning permission. West Sussex County Council is responsible for planning control of libraries, waste sites, mineral sites and schools. Current planning policy directs development away from flood risk areas, however there remains an emphasis on development and the economy. Permitting safe housing is a constant challenge for developers and planners.
With regard to development in flood risk areas, site allocations and planning applications are informed and assessed by the planning process in a number of ways. The planning process, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), applies a principle called the Sequential Test that seeks to direct development towards areas with the lowest risk of flooding.
Where the Sequential Test is not possible, the Exception Test is undertaken whereby it must be demonstrated that any development in an area at risk of flooding will provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, and that such development will be safe for its lifetime. Flood risk should not be increased elsewhere as a result of development. Flooding from new development cannot be allowed to impact on third parties.
Page | 54
130 The NPPF classifies flood risk into four different zones of probability (flood zone 1 (low probability), flood zone 2 (medium probability), flood zone 3a (high probability) and flood zone 3b (functional floodplain)). These zones are set out in Strategic Flood Risk Assessments which are used to inform local plans and decisions regarding development and flood risk.
Response, rescue and recovery
The West Sussex Multi-Agency Flood Plan contains the Sussex Resilience Forum procedures for response, rescue and recovery. The plan sets out when a response is triggered and when adverse weather arrangements begin. This plan was activated and used during the June 2012 flooding. These plans are in place across the country to ensure good management and coordination in an emergency situation. All emergency response organisations including the police, fire and rescue, ambulance services, West Sussex County Council, the Districts and Borough Councils and the Environment Agency are signed up to the plan. Parishes and Town Councils also have an important role to play before, during and after an event.
The plan is in two sections, a generic overview and a more detailed plan for each urban centre within the county. The plan considers all types of flooding; coastal, river, surface, ground, sewer flooding. The triggers for multi-agency response are Environment Agency Flood Alerts and Warnings, Met Office Weather Warnings, and reports of flooding. Considerations involve pre agreed communication between risk management authorities to identify the level of risk and decide on the action. Depending on the size of the event this could be to do nothing, activate Part 1 of the Multi-Agency Flood Plan, or activate both parts.
If a response is activated, adverse weather arrangements are supported by the Sussex Emergency Response and Recovery Document and Multi-Agency Strategic Co-ordinating Group Guidance. The multi-agency response will either be an Adverse Weather Teleconference (chaired by the Environment Agency), a Adverse Weather Office (chaired by the Police), or, to set up Strategic Co-coordinating Group (chaired by the Police).
With regard to rescue procedures the detailed plans for each urban centre contain the processes involved to evacuate, and also include shelter arrangements. Procedures and the response to flooding can vary depending on the type of flood event, the area and the time of year. Membership of the recovery group will vary depending on the event, but will usually include all risk management authorities. A Recovery Co-ordinating Group led by West Sussex County Council will manage the recovery process.
Page | 55
131 The Water Framework Directive
The Water Framework Directive seeks to improve the management, protection and enhancement of the water environment. In 2009 the Environment Agency produced eleven River Basin Management Plans for the basin districts across England and Wales. These plans are available on online at the Environment Agency website. The work programme in this strategy is eligible to receive contributions from Water Framework Directive funding to implement improvement projects.
The West Sussex local flood risk management strategy supports the actions identified in the South East River Basin Management Plan. All projects on the work programme are required to have regard to the ecological and chemical status of water bodies. The projects will help deliver the objectives of these plans where possible. West Sussex County Council will conduct ordinary watercourse consenting and future sustainable drainage management so that the functions contribute to the Water Framework Directive objectives.
There are 148 water bodies within West Sussex boundary. These water bodies consist of 121 river catchments, 14 groundwater bodies, 8 lake water bodies, and 5 coastal water bodies. Investigations into the quality of these water bodies have identified work that needs to be done to improve their status and the water environment as a whole. This process of investigation and identification is supported by West Sussex by the inclusion of WFD projects on the work programme.
The watercourses within the county are extensively used for water abstraction, agriculture, navigation and flood protection. To accommodate these uses our watercourses have been over widened, deepened and impounded with a variety of structures such as locks, weirs, dams and mills. These changes have interfered with the rivers natural flow, negatively impacting the wildlife and health of our watercourses. To start to remedy these issues the strategy is integrating the delivery of flood risk and WFD objectives to provide sustainable cost effective options of managing flood risk for the catchment. West Sussex County Council will support future works to deliver improvements, such as the removal of redundant structures, reconnection to floodplain where feasible and soft engineering options. Cost may restrict what work can be undertaken but options will be considered and assessed.
Pollution from agricultural land, treated waste water discharges and urban drainage are the major pressures to chemical and ecological status of water quality in West Sussex. To manage these pressures the strategy:
. supports catchment sensitive farming initiatives that seek to change agricultural practices;
. encourage planned waste water projects so that water companies can contribute to reducing the concentration of pollutants;
. Adopt water sensitive urban drainage through the planning process and prioritise on key areas.
Page | 56
132 A collaboration of interested parties including, Sussex Wildlife Trust, Arun and Rother Rivers Trust, Adur and Ouse Rivers Trust, Natural England, Environment Agency, Water Companies and many others, have founded two catchment groups, the Adur and Ouse Partnership and the Arun and Western Streams steering group, which cover West Sussex County. These groups are sharing the collective knowledge of the area and integrating their activities on the ground to deliver more for the environment. West Sussex County Council will continue to engage with the Adur and Ouse Partnership and the Arun and Western Streams steering group to further our understanding of the local water environment and help prioritise and implement work.
Partnership working
Partnership working between authorities is essential to the effective delivery of flood risk management actions. Partnerships need to link authorities at Council, Cabinet, Director and Officer level so each organisation and flood risk management has the best chance of working effectively. While the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 has better clarified flood risk responsibilities, they are still distributed across different organisations.
The Environment Agency’s National Strategy focuses on community partnership working. On the ground, West Sussex County Council, the District and Borough Councils, together with the Environment Agency, Thames Water, Southern Water and National Flood Forum complete this link to the public. Town and Parish Councils and the National Flood Forum play a very important role involving the public as they create community representation. This work is supported by the Defra pathfinder project which is encouraging community involvement and resilience. The project is also trialling property level protection in certain areas of the county.
Operation Watershed is a limited period fund which promotes drainage projects lead by community groups. The West Sussex County Council webpages extend an offer to community groups to get involved and lead a local project to carry out drainage work in their area. Operation Watershed is also committing investment to highway drainage and environmental improvements in the areas worst affected by the June 2012 floods.
In terms of democratic representation, elected members will sign off the flood risk management work programme and this Local Flood Risk Management Strategy. Elected County Council members are also able to influence flood risk funding via the ‘Local Levy’ funding through RFCC (explained in Chapter 3) and the WSCC Members fund.
The national Flood Defence Grant in Aid (FDGiA) funding for flood risk management schemes has a limited amount of money and many schemes will require Partnership Funding contributions in order to go ahead. Partnership working is therefore extremely important to flood risk management. If people are pro-active and are regularly communicating then delivery and progress is more likely to be effective. By working together we can avoid duplication, maximise available resources and funding opportunities, and share best practice, skills and expertise.
Page | 57
133 The Resilience and Emergency Teams work with the town and parish councils on emergency planning for flooding. If you are interested in getting involved please make contact with your town or parish council.
Local Authority, Government and other Organisations A number of partnerships at a local, national and regional level provide a forum for discussion on key issues and the delivery of projects. The key partnerships in West Sussex are listed below. The governance relationship between these groups is shown in Figure 10.
Figure 10 : Partnership groups and governance within West Sussex.
• South East Seven
A partnership of seven upper tier authorities (East Sussex, West Sussex, Kent, Medway, Hampshire, Brighton and Hove, and Surrey) created with the purpose of identifying savings through working together, using shared services, increasing efficiencies and generally working better.
• West Sussex Strategic Flood Risk Management Board The board is a director level partnership of the flood risk management authorities in West Sussex which provides strategic overview and decision making around flood risk management work within the county.
• West Sussex Flood Risk Management Operations Group The working group are an officer level working team that meet quarterly to solve county wide issues, progress actions and discuss future work and contributions. The aim of this group is to provide a joint resource to develop solutions at the most appropriate level. This group
Page | 58
134 provides inputs to current and future projects and will develop the outline flood risk management work programme going forward.
• West Sussex Planning Policy Officers Group A joint group which discuss planning issues across the county. A representative sits on the Operations Group above.
• Coastal Groups Coastal Groups comprise all the key partners in coastal management - principally the coastal managers from maritime Local Authorities, Ports Authorities and the Environment Agency. Other interested organisations, such as Natural England and English Heritage, will also be members. West Sussex will work with both the southern and south eastern coastal groups, and will have representatives on the Operations Group.
• South Downs National Park Authority
Fifty per cent of West Sussex falls within the South Downs National Park, an area of national importance in terms of its landscape, wildlife and cultural heritage. In the implementation of this strategy, West Sussex County Council and its partners will work with the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) to safeguard and where possible enhance the beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the county. The SDNPA also acts as the planning authority with the park boundary. A representative of the SDNP sits on the Operations Group.
• Water Framework Directive groups These groups are a partnership of land owners and authorities that will lead on a programme of work to achieve ecological and chemical improvements to rivers and watercourses, including removing unneeded manmade structures and improving fish passage. The two groups in West Sussex are: the Adur and Ouse Partnership and the Arun and Western Streams Partnership.
The community and public involvement Flood Action Groups
If they live within a flood risk area the best way for a member of the public to be involved is through a Flood Action Group. Flood Action Groups are a representative voice for their community and their aim is to work in partnership with the agencies and authorities whose work involves flood risk. Through the groups, members of the public can work on behalf of the wider community in finding ways to reduce flood risk.
The National Flood Forum supports communities in the formation of Flood Action Groups, gives tools to ensure their success and sustainability and initiates the first meeting with all the right professionals needed. Many groups have been formed since the June 2012 flooding. You can find out whether a group already exists in your area by contacting the National Flood Forum via their website.
Page | 59
135 Parish and Town Councils
If you are interested in finding out more or would like to offer your time for local matters the Parish and Town Council in your area is good organisation to contact. They will already be operating and governing a range of tasks and may require assistance. You can find the contact details for your local Parish or Town Council via the West Sussex County Council website.
West Sussex Community and Economic Development Teams
West Sussex County Council has three Community and Economic Development Team’s responsible for community projects. The three teams cover the Gatwick Diamond area, the coastal area and the rural inland area. The teams are able to advise on local contribution work that members of the public can get involved with.
Gatwick Diamond Team (Email: [email protected]) This team covers the parishes of: Albourne, Ansty and Staplefield, Ardingly, Ashurst Wood, Balcombe, Bewbush, Billingshurst, Bolney, Broadbridge Heath, Broadfield, Burgess Hill, Colgate, Crawley, Cuckfield, East Grinstead, Furnace Green, Fulking, Gatwick, Gossops Green, Hassocks, Haywards Heath, Horsham, Horsted Keynes, Hurstpierpoint and Sayers Common, Ifield, Industrial, Itchingfield, Langley Green, Lindfield, Lower Beeding, Maidenbower, Newtimber, Northgate, Nuthurst, Pound Hill, Poynings, Pyecombe, Rudgwick, Rusper, Shipley, Slaugham, Slinfold, Southgate, Southwater, Three Bridges, Turners Hill, Twineham, Warnham, West Green, West Hoathly and Worth.
Coastal Team (Email: [email protected]) This team covers the parishes of: Aldingbourne, Aldwick, Angmering, Arundel, Barnham, Bersted, Bognor Regis, Burpham, Clapham, Clymping, Coombes, East Preston, Eastergate, Felpham, Ferring, Findon, Ford, Houghton, Kingston, Lancing, Littlehampton, Lyminster and Crossbush, Madehurst, Middleton-on-Sea, Pagham, Patching, Poling, Rustington, Slindon, Sompting, South Stoke, Walberton, Warningcamp, Worthing and Yapton.
Rural Team (Email: [email protected] This team covers the parishes of: Amberley, Appledrum, Ashington, Ashurst, Barlavington, Bepton, Bignor, Birdham, Bosham, Boxgrove, Bramber, Bury, Chichester CP, Chidham and Hambrook, Cocking, Coldwaltham, Compton, Cowfold, Donnington, Duncton, Earnley, Eartham, Easebourne, East Dean, East Lavington, East Wittering, Ebernoe, Elstead and Treyford, Fernhurst, Fishbourne, Fittleworth, Funtington, Graffham, Harting, Henfield, Heyshott, Hunston, Kirdford, Lavant, Linch, Linchmere, Lodsworth, Loxwood, Lurgashall, Marden, Midhurst, Milland, North Mundham, Northchapel, Oving, Parham, Petworth, Plaistow, Pulborough, Rogate, Selsey, Shermanbury, Sidlesham, Singleton, Southbourne, Stedham with Iping, Steyning, Stopham, Storrington and Sullington, Stoughton, Sutton, Tangmere, Thakeham, Tillington, Trotton with Chithurst, Upper Beeding, Upwaltham, Washington, West Chiltington, West Dean, West Grinstead, West Itchenor, West Lavington, West Thorney, West Wittering, Westbourne, Westhampnett, Wisborough Green, Wiston, Woolbeding and Woodmancote.
Page | 60
136 Chapter 3 - Work Programme and Action Plan
West Sussex Local Flood Risk Management Strategy
“I have seen what can be achieved when communities and local partners work together to solve the problems they face. I have seen apparently insurmountable problems overcome by partners working together with a common purpose, pooling their energy and resources... as a society we can rise to the challenge of our changing climate and tackle the risks we face.”
Richard Benyon, Former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State
Objectives
To reflect the Governments strategic objectives in the local context, West Sussex County Council have agreed, in partnership with the Districts and Boroughs, the following objectives to guide local focus and progress. These are to:
• Understand the areas that flood 1
• Manage the flood risk in West Sussex 2
• Enable people, communities, business and public bodies to work together 3 more effectively
• Put communities at the heart of what we do and help West Sussex residents 4 during flood events, and recover as quickly as possible after incidents
All work undertaken by all flood risk management authorities in West Sussex will need to make progress under one or more of these objectives. The action plan (Appendix F) sets out the actions which will be taken to achieve these objectives. Each of the items in the work programme (Appendix D) are referenced against these four objectives.
Page | 61
137 • Understand the areas that flood 1
The first step in finding solutions to flooding problems is an accurate understanding of where, when and how flooding occurs. There are some areas across the county where there is a lack of evidence and data to support decisions about the best way to reduce flood risk. The County Council will continue collect and analyse information to support this Strategy and its new role.
• Manage the flood risk in West Sussex 2
The next step, following improved information on flood risk, is what can be done to reduce the risks. There is limited funding to deliver works, so money for physical schemes must be prioritised, other funding sources utilised, and other ways to reduce local flood risk considered. Reducing local flood risk includes avoiding inappropriate development and reducing coastal erosion, and considering local resilience measures such as flood warnings and property level protection as well ensuring maintenance of drainage assets.
• Enable people, communities, business and public bodies to work together 3 more effectively
West Sussex County Council will work with the flood action groups and other community groups to understand the local risks. We will ensure that information in the public domain is kept up to date and is clear and descriptive as possible. We will work with partners to ensure, that as far as possible, people making enquiries about flooding aren’t passed between the relevant authorities. Between public bodies, we will seek the best ways of enabling partnership funding for schemes. We will continue to work closely with our partners, and share information.
• Put communities at the heart of what we do and help West Sussex residents 4 during flood events, and recover as quickly as possible after incidents
West Sussex County Council with the Sussex Resilience Forum category 1 and 2 responders will continue to improve emergency plans. We will continue to develop these plans and other flood event responses to take into account the recommendations of the investigations into the June 2012 event and other relevant historic investigations. West Sussex County Council’s Resilience and Emergencies team will work with local communities and parish, town, district and borough councils to improve community resilience to flooding and other extreme weather events.
Page | 62
138 The local programme and funding
West Sussex County Council along with all other county and unitary authorities are funded by a Formula Grant provided by the Department for Communities and Local Government. Together with locally collected council tax, the two resources fund the entire range of services administered by the council. Flood risk management is one of these services which must be considered alongside health and social care commissioning, communities commissioning, strategic development, public health, finance and assurance, service operations, adult services and child services. West Sussex County Council has to decide how much to allocate to each service, and consider flood risk management priorities against other investment needs.
This section describes how flood risk management investment in West Sussex is funded. Budgets are limited so it is important to identify exactly what can be done, what will require addition contributions, and what can be programmed to happen at a later date. There are various funding streams available to fund projects, some of which are new.
The Pitt Review 2007 recommended that a new funding scheme should be implemented to allow community and third party groups to invest in flood risk management. The new funding mechanism is now active and grants money based on what benefits will be delivered by the project (a payment based on outcomes). This payment is made from the main pot of annual funding which is called ‘Flood Defence Grant in Aid’. The key benefits considered in the payment are the reduced risk to; householder property, infrastructure, vulnerable communities, environmental benefits, and benefit to businesses and agriculture.
The funding process aims to encourage those that will benefit from the flood improvement works to contribute financially. This mechanism was put in place to draw in funds and bolster the Flood Defence Grant in Aid pot of money. Defra has set new principles for the new national funding systems. These include:
- Increase the total amount of available resources for flood risk management;
- Enable more cost effective options to be chosen;
- Enable more projects to be funded;
- Funds will be prioritised and available to those most at risk and who need it most;
- All risk management authorities will have equal access to bid for money for projects;
- The general tax payer should not pay towards protecting new developments, now or in the future;
- Greater local decision making should not compromise the future programme of projects waiting for funding;
- Catchment Flood Management Plan policies and findings should be adhered to when bidding for projects and investing in flood risk management;
Page | 63
139 - Maintain the widespread take up of flood risk insurance by maintaining flood risk effectively.
Using this funding process some projects will be fully funded while some will achieve only partial funding. The balance is decided on the amount of benefit that the project would deliver. If partial funding is achieved, the shortfall in the total project cost is expected to be met by a contribution or by revising the proposal.
Funding can be applied for by any risk management authority or can be made by other bodies via the Lead Local Flood Authority to the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee.
Flood Defence Developer Local contributions Grant in Aid businesses
Local Highways authority funding funding Flood Risk Management Local Environment Funds Agency residents
Other risk Central RFCC local management government levy funding authorities initiatives
Figure 11: The funding avenues available for flood risk management works
Page | 64
140 The Work Programme
The work programme (Appendix D) is compiled of actions from existing plans, strategies and from the current list of work (‘The Medium Term Plan’) that is scheduled for 2013/14. The programme is compiled of projects from these sources:
- Existing works schedules agreed from previous years (works already on the Medium term Plan) - Shoreline Management Plan - Catchment Flood Management Plan - Surface Water Management Plans - West Sussex County Council Report on June 2012 Flood Event - Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder Scheme - Flood Risk Regulations 2009 work schedules - Flood and Water Management Act 2010 work schedules - The Water Framework Directive work schedules - The Highways Authority (West Sussex Country Council) - District and Borough led work
The work programme does not currently include: - Future Southern Water infrastructure work (due to commercial sensitivity issues) - Highways Agency work
The identified projects and studies help achieve the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy’s objectives. The work programme will be a ‘live’ document and will be updated by the relevant risk management authorities and owned by the West Sussex Strategic Flood Risk Management Board. Some of the projects will be carried out solely using local funding and some will require the relevant risk management authorities to bid for funding from national Flood Defence Grant in Aid through the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee.
A number of fluvial and coastal schemes are currently being progressed across the county by the Environment Agency, District and Borough Councils. The schemes include strategy development, flood alleviation works, and ongoing management of key assets including beach management, outfall and tidal walls. They have all achieved funding through the partnership funding approach. Due to their priority some projects have secured 100% funding because of the significant level of protection they provide a community. In other cases a contribution has been required in order to unlock the funding.
What is being done in my area?
The best way to identify projects or investigations in your area is to view Appendix D and find the alphabetically listed wet spots. Each line on the programme is a project or investigation.
Page | 65
141 Not all villages and towns constitute a wet spot, nor do all wet spots have projects or investigations. The work programme will be updated regularly as new information on areas at risk becomes available and projects are developed to try and find solutions.
A full list of the current flood and coastal risk management schemes approved by the Southern Regional Flood and Coastal Committee can be found on the Environment Agency website.
How will projects on the work programme get funded?
Each year the risk management authorities will agree which projects should be put forward for national funding and then these projects will be considered by the elected members who form the Southern Regional Flood and Coastal Committee to see if they are suitable for funding.
Defra has recently changed the way in which risk management authorities can access funding for flood risk management activities. Under the new scheme funding can be gained based on the benefits delivered (known as ‘payment for outcomes’). Benefits are calculated by assessing indicators’ such as the number of households protected, the damages being prevented, the impact on vulnerable communities, environmental benefits, and benefits to businesses and agriculture amongst others. The Government developed the methodology in line with the Pitt Review recommendations.
The funding scheme aims to encourage those that will benefit from the flood alleviation scheme, such as community businesses and developers, to contribute financially. It is anticipated that this process will enable Defra to spread its finite resources more widely to fund more projects. Defra has devised a set of principles to support the new national funding system:
. Encourage an increase in total investment in flood risk management by operating authorities, beyond levels provided by central Government alone; . Enable more local choice within the system and encourage innovative and cost- effective options to be promoted; . Rather than some projects being fully funded and others not at all, now some funding will be available to all potential projects; . Funds from central government should prioritise protecting those most at risk and least able to help themselves; . All flood and coastal erosion projects, regardless of which risk management authority is leading it, should be treated equally based on the benefits delivered and damages avoided. . The general taxpayer should not pay to protect new development in areas at risk of flooding, now or in the future;
Page | 66
142 . Greater local input and decision making should not come at the expense of creating a stable pipeline of projects; . All investment should be made within a nationally consistent framework to take account of policies and findings within Catchment Flood Management Plans; . Maintain the widespread take-up of flood insurance by helping to keep insurance affordable through risks being managed properly.
Under this system some schemes will continue to receive complete funding, if the benefits significantly outweigh the costs, and for others partial funding would be available, and partnership contributions would be sought. Figure 12 illustrates the old ‘all or nothing’ system, and, the new approach. Funding can be applied for, on an annual basis, via the Government’s Flood Defence Grant in Aid. Applications are assessed by the Environment Agency at a Project Appraisal Board and applicants receive an indicative allocation of funding pending approval by the Regional Flood and Coastal Committees.
Figure 12: Old ‘all or nothing’ system versus new ‘payment for outcomes’
Applications are open to the Environment Agency, West Sussex County Council, District and Borough councils, and Internal Drainage Boards. Funding from the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee’s local levy is also available for flood alleviation schemes, to tackle tidal, costal, fluvial and surface water flood risk.
Environmental assessment of the work programme
A Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) has been undertaken to ensure that significant environmental effects arising from this strategy are identified, assessed and mitigated.
Page | 67
143 The Strategic Environmental Assessment is a generic tool that was introduced by the European Union Directive 2001/42/EC. The objective of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive is to “to provide for a high level of protection of the environment and to contribute to the integration of environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans and programmes with a view to promoting sustainable development”(Article 1)”. This requires national, regional and local authorities in Member States to carry out a strategic environmental assessment on certain plans and strategies that they promote, such as this strategy.
Monitoring of the significant environmental effects of implementing the strategy will be undertaken to comply with Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive - Article 10.1, to ensure that any unforeseen adverse effects of the strategy are recognised and dealt with.
The Strategic Environmental Assessment was carried out alongside the development of the Strategy. The assessment represents Stage A of the process, the scoping report. The scoping report sets the context and objectives of the environmental report, and sets the baseline information from which future environmental performance can be monitored. Both the strategy and the SEA have been consulted on, and are available as separate documents.
The Action Plan
The Action Plan The projects listed in the work programme are only part of the actions being taken to achieve the strategy objectives. Under each of the objectives there are a number of wider actions which will be carried out to reduce flood risk in the county. The timelines and persons likely to carry out these actions are set out in Appendix F and the actions are detailed below;
Objective 1 – Understanding the areas that flood
1A Increase the amount of evidence about local flooding that is collected and use it more wisely.
There are some areas where there is a lack of evidence and data to support decisions due to under investment into research and investigation on local flooding in the past. The County Council will continue collect and analyse information to support this Strategy and its new role. With the regular reviewing, sharing and updating of flood risk information our understanding of local problems will improve. This will result in better use of information to carry out actions to address local flooding issues. This could be through improved mapping, changing drainage maintenance to target high risk areas, influencing planning decisions and of course through building and maintaining drainage solutions where it is appropriate to do so. Information gathering will be aided by the County Council’s new flood investigation role,
Page | 68
144 feedback from Town and Parish Councils and sharing of reports from District, Borough and water utility partners.
1B Improve Surface Water and Groundwater Flooding Maps
Although there is a lots of very accurate data around where flooding may occur from rivers and the sea, the information surround surface water and groundwater flooding is less comprehensive and the flood warning maps are at a lower level of detail. This is mainly because until the Flood and Water Management Act no public body was given the responsibility to investigate these types of flooding. We will seek to gather all the relevant data on these types of flooding and use it to improve the level of detail we hold and publish. This work will use the surface water management plans previously carried out and those proposed in certain areas. This will mean that we, our partners and the public will be able to make more informed decisions around the level of risk that is faced and what to do about it. New surface water mapping is was made available on the Environment Agency’s website In December 2013.
Objective 2 – Manage the Flood Risk in West Sussex
2A Create a prioritised programme of capital flood risk management works for the county
By developing the programme attached to the strategy, we will aim to create a prioritise working list of capital works and studies from all flood risk management partners in the county including County Council. Environment Agency and District and Borough schemes. Southern and Thames water schemes will be included where possible but the different funding regime may mean an alternative partnership approach for joint working needs to be found. The joint programme will prioritise schemes to a set of criteria (using many of the existing social, economic and environmental factors) agreed by the partners and will allow us to make decisions around where funding should come from, which schemes will be built and what happens in areas where schemes are unlikely to be built. Some priority schemes will be submitted for consideration for inclusion on the medium term plan approval by the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee ; where they can attracted Flood Defence Grant in Aid or Local Levy funding.
2B Avoid increasing flood and coastal erosion risk by encouraging best practice for the maintenance of assets and preventing inappropriate development.
We will work together with our partners to decide what development is acceptable in areas of flood risk; recognising that land is limited and that although these areas would ideally be avoided there may be social or economic reasons for developing there. We will work to ensure that flood risk in planning is considered on a consistent level and with conditions attached for approvals to make sure the required actions are carried out. Significant flood defence assets will continue to be added to the Flood Asset Register to ensure they are managed appropriately and considered as part of future solutions. The National Planning Policy Framework requires local planning authorities (including the South Downs National
Page | 69
145 Park Authority) to consider all flood risk when drafting development plans and in making decisions on development proposals. The assessment of local flood risks (which will be regularly reviewed) will assist in refining the Strategic Flood Risk Assessments which inform the Local Plan development strategies of the local planning authorities within West Sussex i.e. District and Borough Councils and the South Downs National Park Authority.
2C Continued working to improve surface water drainage across the county:
West Sussex County Council will continue to work on smaller scale schemes, improvements and maintenance on the highways of West Sussex and, as well as other partners (especially District and Borough Authorities) will seek to improve local drainage in other areas where it is in the public benefit to carry out works. Surface water management plans will be carried out in some locations to identify how flooding occurs and suggest future actions. A county wide awareness campaign will be held to increase knowledge of riparian responsibilities and the benefits for communities of working locally to increase resilience. Local authorities will continue working with landowners and developers to ensure that legal responsibilities are met with respect to ordinary watercourse drainage consenting and enforcement.
Once government commences Schedule 3 and related sections of the Flood and Water Management Act, the County Council will become a Sustainable Drainage Approving Body, or SAB. All development over certain thresholds will need to secure drainage approval before construction begins. This gives the County Council the opportunity to ensure that new developments do not contribute to flooding from the drainage network causing.
2.D Reducing flood risk through improved warnings, local scale works and local resilience
The prioritised approach set out under objective 2A focusses major works on identified wetspots around the county. However this does not mean we will ignore the risk faced by the county’s rural, isolated or lower risk communities. It will be necessary for these flood risk areas to be treated in the same proportionate approach. Risk reduction may be more likely to be through improved awareness and response to flooding to reduce the impacts when it does occur rather than reducing the chances of it occurring. This will be carried out in partnership through working with the Environment Agency to deliver flood warnings, improve awareness of the flooding risks, increased local resilience and direct people towards self- protection of their property. Where possible we will help facilitate local small scale works through our other functions and community working, and may carry out local schemes if they have a strong community, economic or environment benefit.
Page | 70
146 Objective 3 - Enable people, communities, business and public bodies to work together more effectively
3A Improving communications between communities and public bodies
West Sussex County Council will work with the flood action groups, Town and Parish Councils and other community groups to understand the local risks and ensure decisions are made with the best level of local information. We will ensure that information in the public domain is kept up to date and is clear and descriptive as possible. Explanations about what works we are carrying out and why will be made available and the limitations due to resources, technical considerations and other priorities clearly explained. We will work with partners to ensure, that as far as possible, people making enquiries about flooding aren’t passed between the relevant authorities unless necessary.
3B Information sharing to improve awareness of flood risk
Raising community awareness is a key activity. Flood risk cannot be removed entirely but we can work to help prepare individuals and communities by providing the right information to those who need it. The County Council and its partners will undertake focussed awareness raising programmes highlighting which areas are at risk and the actions communities can take to minimise the impacts of flooding. Local resilience work will identify those at risk and help them prepare for flood risk and provide support and assistance, especially for vulnerable people.
3C Continued partnership working with other Risk Management Authorities
West Sussex County Council as LLFA will continue to chair both the strategic board and operations group. Where duties are best delivered at a local scale we will seek to work with our partners to agree who is best placed to carry out this work, recognising that local expertise and resources currently exist. When the SAB duty is implemented we will work with the local planning authorities and Environment Agency in to ensure that the planning and drainage approval processes work together effectively.
3.D Seek the best ways of enabling Partnership Funding for schemes
Collaborative working and joint funding across partner organisations will be key to maximising the return on investment in flood risk management .Any new capital schemes will likely require some form of partnership funding as well as central government funding in order to progress (as discussed later in the chapter), the local risk management authorities led by West Sussex County Council will develop an approach to agreeing partnership funding requirements to ensure the best use of local public funds. This will ensure that public money is used wisely, in a strategic way to protect the areas at greatest risk. Officers will also seek other sources of funding which could be used for this purpose and help communities and businesses make their own contributions which will likely increases their chances of receiving flood defence works in their area. In order to facilitate fundraising efforts a specific funding action plan will be developed for the highest priority schemes identified in the programme. This will entail research, analysis, review of contacts and
Page | 71
147 experience, and discussions with partners, funders and others to better understand what potential there is for funding any identified projects.
Objective 4 - Put communities at the heart of what we do and help West Sussex residents; both during flood events and to recover as quickly as possible after incidents
4A Continued flood event planning with other emergency responders
West Sussex, along with the other members of the Sussex Resilience Forum category 1 and 2 responders, will continue to develop, appraise and revise its emergency plans to take account of local factors and developing information on flood risk. We will continue to develop these plans and other flood event responses to take into account the recommendations of the investigations into the June 2012 event and other relevant historic investigations.
4B Improving community resilience
West Sussex County Council’s Resilience and Emergencies team will work with local communities and parish, town, district and borough councils to improve community resilience to flooding and other extreme weather events. Residents and communities need to harness local resources and expertise to help themselves in the event of an emergency, but in such a way that it compliments and enhances the emergency services capabilities. Local authorities across West Sussex will engage and develop community resilience and help people protect themselves and their property by making their homes and businesses more resilient to flooding.
LLFA Responsibilities under the Flood and Management Act 2010
Next Steps
This local flood risk management strategy for 2013 – 2018 represents the first step towards a co-ordinated county-wide approach to flood risk management. The strategy sets out the roles, responsibilities, objectives, and the priorities of the risk management authorities. The local authorities and Environmental Agency, in partnership with the other risk management authorities and key stakeholders, will use the investigations and projects on the work programme to manage local flooding issues across West Sussex over the next five years.
The key focus for the first five years is to carry out improvements to address known local flooding problems. The priority wet spots, identified by mapping and historic flood risk, are to be considered first, but any value for money project with positive benefits, irrespective of its location, will be considered. In times of austerity, funding capital works is going to be challenging, especially where projects are required to have some partnership contributions in order to proceed. It may be that in many areas the risk of flooding is managed through early
Page | 72
148 flood warnings and local resilience measures. Local authorities will also help communities take action to help themselves and carry out their own riparian responsibilities.
The work programme (Appendix D) will be reviewed by the West Sussex County Council Operations Group and Strategic Board. The work programme will be updated with progress, new information and new projects that emerge, and will be prioritised so that all projects, be they large or small, from all sources of flooding are considered on an equal basis.
As well as physical works, the risk management authorities in West Sussex will seek to reduce flood risk through their other actions (Appendix F) such as planning and development control, highways management, consenting of watercourses and drainage works. We will seek to retain and develop the expertise already present in the County Council as well as increasing capacity where required. Through collaborative working and addressing issues at the appropriate authority level, be that at town, parish, district, borough or county council we will make the best use of the resources and funding available. All the authorities involved are committed to delivering these objectives and to reduce flood risk to the communities of West Sussex. West Sussex County Council will continue to take responsibility and lead these meetings with the other stakeholders.
The strategy will be reviewed annually to check that objectives, actions and policies are appropriate and remain compatible and achievable. The work programme will be a continually evolving document and will be updated at least quarterly. A regular review of the action plan will be carried out at the same time and should highlight any issues which may affect the ability to deliver the objectives set out in the strategy. Minor changes to the strategy will be made as required and changes noted. If major changes are required due to new information or polices then a new public consultation will be held. For moderate changes a decision will be made by the West Sussex Strategic Flood Risk Management Board as to whether additional public consultation. The definitions of minor, moderate and major changes are set out below. The most up to date documents will always be found on the West Sussex County Council website
Types of change to strategy document:
Minor – text corrections that do not alter the context or outcomes of the strategy; mapping corrections; change where no further study or new information will be required.
Moderate – other changes to the Action Plan or Work Programme which may impact on the strategy delivery or textual corrections where context is altered; changes impacting a nationally designated sites, e.g. SSSI, NNR, AONB, Conservation Area.
Major – significant changes to the Action Plan or Work Programme affecting delivery of strategy objectives; mapping corrections that affect the numbers of properties affected by flooding or erosion leading to changes in the priority areas; changes of objectives; significant changes to Government policy including funding; changes impacting on internationally designated sites, e.g. SAC, SPA, RAMSAR and MCZ
Page | 73
149 Appendix A
The Project Team
Organisation
Adur District Council
Worthing Borough Council
Arun District Council
Crawley Borough Council
Horsham District Council
Mid Sussex District Council
Chichester District Council
West Sussex County Council
Southern Water Services
Environment Agency
Page | 74
150 Appendix B
The Wet Spot Maps
Please note this Appendix to this strategy is a separate document. The wet spot maps included in the full appendix are;
Aldingbourne, Westergate & Eastergate Littlehampton Aldwick Littlehampton West & Climping Angmering Loxwood Arundel Middleton-on-Sea & Elmer Barnham & Walberton Midhurst Billingshurst North Mundham & Runcton Birdham Oving Bognor Regis & Felpham Pagham & Nyetimber Bosham Pulborough Bramber & Upper Beeding Rustington Burgess Hill Sayers Common Charlton Selsey (West) Chichester Selsey East Chidham Shoreham & Lancing Copthorne Sidlesham Crawley Singleton Earnley & Bracklesham Sompting East Dean Southbourne, Hermitage & Nutbourne East Grinstead Southwater East Preston Storrington East Wittering Tangmere & Boxgrove Ferring Coast & Rife Thorney Fishbourne West Itchenor Hassocks West Wittering Haywards Heath & Lindfield Westbourne Horsham Worthing Hunston
Page | 75
151 Appendix C
Legislation relevant to the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy
Flood Risk Regulations 2009 The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 The Coastal Protection Act 1949 Catchment Flood Management Plans 2008 Shoreline Management Plans Strategic Flood Risk Assessments The Climate Change Act 2008 Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 Civil Contingencies Act 2004 Strategic Environmental Assessment (SFRA) 2001 Land Drainage Act 1991 Making Space for Water The Natural Environment and Communities Act 2006 The Reservoirs Act 1975 The Water Industry Act 1991 The Water Resources Act 1991 The Building Act 1984 The Health Act 2009 The Highways Act 1980 The Environment Act 1995 The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (with respect to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty). National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act (1949) The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012
Page | 76
152 Appendix D
The West Sussex Work Programme
Please note the full Appendix to this strategy is available as a separate document.
The work programme is listed alphabetically by wet spot. Some significant completed projects are included on the list. Dark blue lines show projects that have secured funding, and light blue lines show future projects.
The strategy objectives 1-4 are referenced against each project.
This work programme will be monitored and updated by the West Sussex Flood Risk Management Group as appropriate over the lifetime of the strategy. This update work will be informed by our partners.
Page | 77
153 Appendix E
Funding
Central Government has committed funds to Lead Local Flood Authorities through the revenue support grant so that Flood and Water management related responsibilities can be implemented. At the time of writing Defra is providing £36 million a year to Lead Local Flood Authorities to deliver their flood risk management functions. The amount of money provided to each unitary or county council depends on the level of risk in the area. West Sussex County Council were allocated £177k for 2011/12, £414k for 2012/13, and £414k for 2013/14. The District and Borough Councils have delegated responsibilities for managing some of the flood risk responsibilities that have been outlined and receive some of the allocated amount via West Sussex County Council.
From 2013, of the £36 million Defra money, £15 million will continue to be distributed by Defra, and the remaining £21 million will transfer into the general funding of the county council or unitary authority. The grant and revenue sources describe can be boosted by small incomes generated from Ordinary Watercourse Consenting and in the future, applications for Sustainable Drainage.
Within the West Sussex County Council total budget there are other funding streams that can be spent on flood risk. Kickstart was a £15 million allocation for community projects flood risk projects. Operation Watershed is the money allocated by West Sussex County Council to carry out some of the recommendations in the West Sussex Flood Report on the June 2012 flooding. This is an £8.25 million pot to fund improvement works in key areas that flooded. Another Defra initiative is the £5 million Pathfinder Project. West Sussex County have successfully bid for £298,000 of the Pathfinder funding for a flooding awareness and property level protection scheme.
West Sussex also contributes via the Local Levy to the Southern Regional Flood and Coastal Committees fund for flood alleviation schemes.
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) The community infrastructure levy came into force in April 2010 and allows Lead Local Flood Authorities to raise funds for flood risk management from new development. The Planning Act 2008 covers the Infrastructure Levy that states the levy can contribute toward a variety of infrastructure including transport, schools, hospitals, parks and schools and flood defences.
Section 106 funding – developer contributions Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 facilitates the provision of funds to support services or infrastructure. The agreement is made at the planning application stage between the developer or land owner, and the local authority. The funds can be used for
Page | 78
154 flood risk management should a proposal increase flood risk. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was introduced in April 2010 as a mechanism for the developer contributions.
Town and Parish Councils The Localism Act enables Town and Parish Councils to spend money on flood risk management. This means that local members could contribute to a local scheme to unlock ‘Flood Defence Grant in Aid’ funding if partial funding has been achieved.
Internal Drainage Boards An Internal Drainage Board (IDB) is a local public authority that manages water levels. They are an integral part of managing flood risk and land drainage within areas of special drainage need in England and Wales. Internal Drainage Boards obtain income from rural land owners who pay agricultural drainage rates, and from District and Boroughs who are required to pay local levies. The Internal Drainage Boards spend their income on maintaining the watercourses, capital asset renewal and refurbishment, pumping station running costs and precepts payable to the Environment Agency. At the time of writing an IDB review was assessing the Environment Agency operation of IDB’s with a view to restructuring how these authorities conduct their work. The review is likely to affect the responsibility as it stands.
The three IDBs completely within West Sussex (Arun, Adur and South West Sussex) raise a total of approximately £300k per year.
Southern Water Southern Water’s income and expenditure on flood risk is regulated by Ofwat the Water Services Regulation Authority. Funding is not allocated by county but an amount is allocated to tackle sewer flooding and infrastructure improvements per 5 year period. From 2010 – 2015 £2 billion was allocated for improving assets, improving services and environmental improvements. Southern Water will be able to contribute to combined sewer flood risk projects and unlock ‘Flood Defence Grant in Aid’ funding.
Environment Agency The key streams of funding for flood risk management are managed in West Sussex by the Southern Regional Flood and Coastal Committee. These streams are the ‘Flood Defence Grant in Aid’ (from central Government), local levies (raises by the LLFA), precepts (collected from Internal Drainage Boards and landowner general drainage charges). Investment from this funding represents the backing for flood alleviation schemes for river, sea and local flooding.
Page | 79
155 Appendix F
The Strategy Action Plan
The following table sets out the actions that will be progressed over the coming year by the Risk Management Authorities in West Sussex and other key partners. These actions will help work towards achieving the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy’s objectives. The managing and supporting partners who will deliver each action are detailed as well as the timescales over which the actions will be achieved.
The plan also includes any other strategic non – capital works which may help deliver the strategy objectives.
The Strategy Action Plan will be reviewed on an annual basis or more frequently if required.
KEY: WSCC - West Sussex County Council EA – The Environment Agency D+B – District and Borough Councils SDNPA – South Downs National Park Authority SW/TW – Southern Water/Thames Water HA – Highways Agency SRF – Sussex Resilience Forum and other emergency responders TC/PC – Town Councils/Parish Councils NFF – National Flood Forum
Page | 80
156 Objective 1 – Understanding the areas that flood
Actions Delivery Partner(s) Other Partner(s) Timescale
1A Increase the amount of evidence about local flooding that is WSCC EA, D+B, SW/TW Ongoing collected and use it more wisely TC/PC
1B Improve Surface Water and Groundwater Flooding Maps WSCC EA, D+B, SW/TW Ongoing
Other Actions:
Review the West Sussex Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment WSCC EA, D+B, SW/TW June 2017 SDNPA
Completion of Worthing Surface Water Management plan Worthing BC WSCC, EA 2013
Elmer Sands Surface Water Management Plan Arun DC WSCC, EA, SW 2014
Lidsey Catchment Surface Water Management Plan Arun DC WSCC, EA, SW 2014
Continuing capture of flood incident data WSCC EA, D+B, SW/TW Ongoing: SDNPA, TC/PC, HA Quarterly updates from D+B
Objective 2 – Manage the Flood Risk in West Sussex
Page | 81
157 Actions Delivery Partner(s) Other Partner(s) Timescale
2A Create a prioritised programme of capital flood risk management WSCC, EA D+B, SW April 2014 works for the county
2B Avoid increasing flood and coastal erosion risk by encouraging D+B, EA, SDNPA, PC/TC, SW/TW Ongoing best practice for the maintenance of assets and preventing WSCC inappropriate development.
2C Continued working to improve surface water drainage across the WSCC D+B, EA, SW/TW, Ongoing county TC/PC,SDNPA
2.D Reducing flood risk smaller areas at risk through improved SRF EA, WSCC, D+B, Ongoing warnings, local scale works and local resilience SW/TW, NFF
Other Actions;
Operation Watershed WSCC PC/TC 2013-15
Defra Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder WSCC, NFF D+B, EA 2013-15
Ongoing maintenance works EA, WSCC, SW/TW , Private asset owners Ongoing D+Bs
Page | 82
158 Objective 3 - Enable people, communities, business and public bodies to work together more effectively
Actions Delivery Partner(s) Other Partner(s) Timescale
3A Improving communications between communities and public bodies WSCC, D+B, EA, NFF, TW/SW, Ongoing SDNPA, TC/PC
WSCC, D+B, EA, 3B Information sharing to improve awareness of flood risk SDNPA, TW/SW, Ongoing TC/PC
3C Continued partnership working with other Risk Management D+B, EA, SDNPA, WSCC Ongoing Authorities TW/SW, TC/PC
3.D Seek the best ways of enabling Partnership Funding for schemes WSCC, D+B, EA, SW/TW, TC/PC 2013-14
Other Actions:
Sharing information across all public bodies websites WSCC, D+B EA, Ongoing
Regional liaison on flood risk matters with southern Lead Local Flood WSCC Ongoing Authorities through the South East Seven Quarterly
Regional Liaison through the Southern Regional Flood and Coastal WSCC, EA D+B, SW Ongoing Committee Quarterly
Page | 83
159 Objective 4 - Put communities at the heart of what we do and help West Sussex residents; both during flood events and to recover as quickly as possible after incidents
Actions Delivery Partner(s) Other Partner(s) Timescale
4A Continued flood event planning with other emergency responders WSCC, SRF TC/PC Ongoing
4B Improving community resilience WSCC, D+B, EA, TC/PC, SRF Ongoing SRF
Other Actions:
Defra Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder Project WSCC, NFF D+B, EA 2013-14
Page | 84
160 NOTES (Blank Page)
Page | 85
161 NOTES (Blank Page)
Page | 86
162
NOTES (Blank Page)
Page | 87
163
Page | 88
164 APPENDIX D WEST SUSSEX OBJECTIVES WEST SUSSEX WORK PROGRAMME 1 •Understand the areas that flood 2 •Manage the flood risk in West Sussex Updated by : J Carter •Enable people, communities, business and public bodies to work together more 3 effectively The light blue lines indicate projects that have not yet secured funding •Put communities at the heart of what we do and help West Sussex residents during flood events, and recover as quickly as possible after incidents The dark blue lines indicate projects that have already been scheduled 4
SOURCE OF PROPERTY Y WORK - BENEFITING IT TIME- WHICH Joint WSCC WET SPOT DISTRICT ACTION OBJECTIVE FROM LEAD COST In progress? OR I SCALE PLAN funded? OBJECTIVE REDUCTION IN R IDENTIFIED P FLOOD RISK IT?
ALDINGBOURNE, Remove obsolete structure, Structures or other 1 WESTERGATE & mechanisms in place and managed to enable fish to To improve regulated flows, Appropriate CHICHESTER / ENVIRONMENT 5-10 Understand EASTERGATE, access waters upstream and downstream, operational management of impoundment, Modify 0 WFD £100k No ARUN AGENCY YRS the areas ⌧ BARNHAM & and structural changes to locks, sluices, weirs, beach structures that flood WALBERTON control etc
ALDINGBOURNE, WESTERGATE & EASTERGATE, 2 Provision of new ditch on private lane from 0-2 BARNHAM & CHICHESTER A29/90 Shripney Road 50 WSCC AMRM £110K No Manage Sack Lane southward. YRS ⌧ WALBERTON, flood risk TANGMERE & BOXGROVE
2 ENVIRONMENT 2-5 ANGMERING ARUN Fluvial and surface water flood alleviation scheme Address flood risk in Angmering 317 MTP £750k Yes Manage AGENCY YRS ⌧ flood risk
2 Address flood risk in Arundel (note: ENVIRONMENT 5-10 £9.2 ARUNDEL ARUN Arundel town defence improvements 129 MTP Yes Manage significant contributions still required) AGENCY YRS million ⌧ flood risk
1 ARUNDEL, Recommend options for flood risk ENVIRONMENT 0-2 Understand ARUN Lower Tidal River Arun Strategy 0 MTP £718K No ⌧ LITTLEHAMPTON management at the River Arun AGENCY YRS the areas that flood
BARNHAM & 1 WALBERTON, Recommend options for flood risk ENVIRONMENT 0-2 Understand ALDINGBOURNE, ARUN Aldingbourne and Barnham Rifes Fluvial Strategy management on the Barnham and 0 MTP £435K No AGENCY YRS the areas ⌧ WESTERGATE & Aldingbourne Rifes that flood EASTERGATE
2 0-2 BILLINGSHURST HORSHAM C12 Marringdean Road Drainage improvements 50 WSCC AMRM £75K No Manage YRS ⌧ flood risk
WSCC 3 BOGNOR REGIS & RIPARIAN 2-5 ARUN Land owner works to be undertaken Identify options for future improvement work 0 FLOOD £1k No Work FELPHAM OWNERS YRS ⌧ REPORT together
Understand the need for improved flood WSCC BOGNOR REGIS & Work with the local community to identify the need for SWS, EA, WSCC, 2-5 4 ARUN warning and cordination, and increased local 0 FLOOD £1k Yes FELPHAM ‘Local Community Flood Wardens’ ADC YRS Resilience ⌧ participation REPORT
Investigate the current state of the water 1 WSCC BOGNOR REGIS & Investigate the current state of the watercourses that body and recommend the best option for SWS, EA, WSCC, 2-5 Understand ARUN 0 FLOOD £5k Yes In progress FELPHAM discharge into the Aldingbourne Rife. future management (linked with the outcome ADC YRS the areas REPORT of the IDB Project) that flood
1 BOGNOR REGIS & Produce a Surface Water Management plan for Investigate drainage and recommend 0-2 Understand ARUN 0 WSCC CFMP £100k No ⌧ FELPHAM Bognor improvement works YRS the areas that flood 2 Improve the sea walls to protect to a 5% 0-2 BOSHAM CHICHESTER Bosham Sea Wall Repairs 24 WSCC MTP £177k Yes Manage annual probability YRS ⌧ flood risk
Improve flood resilience by the production of Produce an Emergency Response Plan for Burgess 2-5 4 BURGESS HILL MID SUSSEX a response plan for Category 1 0 WSCC CFMP £2k No Hill YRS Resilience ⌧ organisations
1 ENVIRONMENT 2-5 Understand BURGESS HILL MID SUSSEX Install Water Level Gauges Improve flood forecasting 0 CFMP £1k No AGENCY YRS the areas ⌧ that flood
2 Take forward actions in Wivelsfield Land Drainage Implement flood risk management 2-5 BURGESS HILL MID SUSSEX 0 WSCC CFMP £50k No Manage Scheme improvements to reduce risk in Wivelsfield YRS ⌧ flood risk
3 Promote the use of sustainable drainage techniques in Reduce surface water flooding by promoting 2-5 BURGESS HILL MID SUSSEX 0 WSCC CFMP £1k No Work new development sustainable drainage YRS ⌧ together
1 Produce a Surface Water Management Plan for Investigate drainage and recommend 5-10 Understand BURGESS HILL MID SUSSEX 0 WSCC CFMP £100k No Burgess Hill improvement works YRS the areas ⌧ that flood
1 Provide plan and implement a consistant CHICHESTER Development and implementation of the Selsey, 0-2 Understand CHICHESTER CHICHESTER approach to managing the beach frontage 595 DISTRICT MTP £950K Yes Bracklesham and East Wittering Beach Management YRS the areas ⌧ and the beach profiles. COUNCIL that flood
2 0-2 CHICHESTER CHICHESTER A286 New Park Road/Spitalfield Lane Drainage improvements 50 WSCC AMRM £30K No Manage YRS ⌧ flood risk
2 0-2 CHICHESTER CHICHESTER A285 Portfield Way Drainage improvements 50 WSCC AMRM £50K No Manage YRS ⌧ flood risk
1 Investigate drainage and recommend 0-2 Understand CHICHESTER CHICHESTER Manhood Peninsula Surface Water Management Plan 0 WSCC None £120k No improvement works YRS the areas ⌧ that flood
Provision of new drainage channel adjacent 2 EARNLEY AND Earnley Improvement Works - Bookers Lane Flood ENVIRONMENT 0-2 CHICHESTER to Bookers Lane houses to provide flood 29 None £322k Yes Manage In progress BRACKLESHAM Alleviation Channel AGENCY YRS alleviation during major storm events. flood risk WSCC 2 Carry out highways drainage repairs that have been Improvements to existing highway drainage 2-5 EAST PRESTON ARUN 12 WSCC FLOOD £8k No Manage In progress previously identified in the area YRS REPORT flood risk
Consider the installation of suitable sized pipe within WSCC 2 Improvements to existing highway drainage 2-5 EAST PRESTON ARUN the existing ditch lne adjacent to Tamarisk Way, thus 12 WSCC FLOOD £30k No Manage In progress in the area YRS reducing the future need for management REPORT flood risk
165 1 WSCC Commission investigation of the buried outfall at East Understand the asset, its function and 2-5 Understand EAST PRESTON ARUN 12 WSCC FLOOD £10k No In progress Preston. Agree future maintenance arrangements determine whether further work is required YRS the areas REPORT that flood
2 Address pinch points for fluvial and surafce ENVIRONMENT 2-5 EAST WITTERING CHICHESTER Investigation and potential improvements work 135 MTP £1 million Yes Manage water flood risk AGENCY YRS ⌧ flood risk
Clear silt and possible obstructions from the existing WSCC 2 2-5 FISHBOURNE CHICHESTER culverts under the A27 and A259, Fishbourne Road Improve conveyance and prevent blockage 50 Highways Agency FLOOD £5k No Manage In progress YRS West REPORT flood risk
Commission work to study the catchment area around WSCC 2 Investigate existing catchment and consider 2-5 FISHBOURNE CHICHESTER Fishbourne Road East to see what long term 0 WSCC FLOOD £10k No Manage In progress upstream attenuation YRS improvements could be made in this area REPORT flood risk
Continue work with Fishbourne Road East to see what WSCC 2 improvements, if any, can be made to the existing Understand the drainage in the area and 2-5 FISHBOURNE CHICHESTER 0 WSCC FLOOD £5k No Manage In progress drainage in the area of Blackboy Lane and Old Park identify future recommendations YRS REPORT flood risk Lane.
1 HAYWARDS HEATH & Produce a Surface Water Management plan for Investigate drainage and recommend 2-5 Understand MID SUSSEX 0 WSCC CFMP £100k No LINDFIELD Haywards Heath improvement works YRS the areas ⌧ that flood
Assess whether structures can be modified : 1 Implement a desk top study and if necessary CCTV HAYWARDS HEATH & Investigate the alteration of channel bed ENVIRONMENT 5-10 Understand MID SUSSEX survey to investigate the culverts within the catchment, 0 WFD £10k No LINDFIELD (within culvert) AGENCY YRS the areas ⌧ identifying those which can be removed or that flood improvements made
Assess whether structures can be modified : 1 Implement a desk top study and if necessary CCTV HAYWARDS HEATH & ENVIRONMENT 5-10 Understand MID SUSSEX survey to investigate the culverts within the catchment, Investigate re-opening existing culverts 0 WFD £10k No LINDFIELD AGENCY YRS the areas ⌧ identifying those which can be removed or that flood improvements made
1 Produce a Surface Water Management plan for Investigate drainage and recommend 2-5 Understand HORSHAM MID SUSSEX 0 WSCC CFMP £100k No Horsham improvement works YRS the areas ⌧ that flood
Implement a desk top study and if necessary CCTV 1 survey to investigate the culverts within the catchment, To improve modified habitat by modifying ENVIRONMENT 5-10 Understand HORSHAM HORSHAM 0 WFD £10k No identifying those which can be removed or structures AGENCY YRS the areas ⌧ improvements made (eg: alternation of channel bed). that flood
2 Make the structure compliant with the ENVIRONMENT 0-2 HORSHAM HORSHAM Warnham Mill Reservoir 80 MTP £1 million Yes Manage Resertvoirs Act AGENCY YRS ⌧ flood risk
2 0-2 HORSHAM HORSHAM A281 Brighton Road Drainage improvements 50 WSCC AMRM £25K No Manage YRS ⌧ flood risk 2 0-2 HORSHAM HORSHAM A281 Guildford Road/Furnace House Farm Drainage improvements 50 WSCC AMRM £20K No Manage YRS ⌧ flood risk
Works to take place during current Horsham 2 Drainage improvement works in West Street, 0-2 HORSHAM HORSHAM District Council road / pavement N/A WSCC KICKSTART N/A Yes Manage Horsham. YRS ⌧ improvement works. flood risk
Review and determine work required at Foreshore and 1 Sea Road Waste Water Pumping stations to ensure Understand the flood risk at Foreshore and WSCC SOUTHERN 2-5 Understand LITTLEHAMPTON ARUN robustness of operation at these locations. This will Sea Road and make recommendations for 0 FLOOD £10k No In progress WATER YRS the areas include the consideration of new pumps for the improvements REPORT that flood Foreshore WWPS
1 Complete drainage model for Littlehampton catchment Understand the flood risk in Littlehampton WSCC SOUTHERN 2-5 Understand LITTLEHAMPTON ARUN to understand and determine future investment needs and make recommendations for 0 FLOOD £10k No In progress WATER YRS the areas due to growth and possible future flooding improvements REPORT that flood
1 WSCC Investigate the possibility of diverting excess surface Investigate options to improve existing 2-5 Understand LITTLEHAMPTON ARUN 0 WSCC FLOOD £5k No water from South Terrace into the Oyster Pond highways drainage system YRS the areas ⌧ REPORT that flood 2 Improve the standard of protection to 0.3% ENVIRONMENT 0-2 £10.5 LITTLEHAMPTON ARUN Littlehampton Arun Tidal Defences East Bank 748 MTP Yes Manage annual probability AGENCY YRS million ⌧ flood risk 2 ENVIRONMENT 2-5 LITTLEHAMPTON ARUN River Arun West Bank Reduce tidal flood risk to Littlehampton 139 MTP £8 million Yes Manage AGENCY YRS ⌧ flood risk 1 Identify the future management requirements at Identify the owners of structures to assess ENVIRONMENT 0-2 Understand LOXWOOD CHICHESTER Loxwood by completing the The Arun Rother whether they can be removed to improve 0 AGENCY / WFD £1k No YRS the areas ⌧ Adaptation Project. fish passage and meet WFD targets WSCC that flood
SOUTHERN 2 MIDDLETON-ON-SEA Separation of roof and paved areas connecting to foul Reduce inflow to foul sewer system and 5-10 ARUN 427 WATER SWMP £50k Yes Manage & ELMER sewer separation of flows. Reduce foul flooding. YRS ⌧ WSCC flood risk
2 MIDDLETON-ON-SEA Interception of roof run-off contribution to soak aways, Delay rainfall reaching drainage assets and 5-10 ARUN 427 WSCC SWMP £75k Yes Manage & ELMER install water butts (Elmer only) ground YRS ⌧ flood risk
Improve private foul drainage resilience to surface Reduce inflow into foul sewer system and 2 MIDDLETON-ON-SEA 2-5 ARUN water inflow, appraisal based on integrated models improve separation of flows. Reduce foul 50 WSCC SWMP £50k Yes Manage & ELMER YRS ⌧ flood mapping (prioritise the highest risk 50 properties) flooding flood risk
Investigation into the 127 remaining properties : 1 Reduce inflow into foul sewer system and SOUTHERN MIDDLETON-ON-SEA Improve private foul drainage resilience to surface 2-5 Understand ARUN improve separation of flows. Reduce foul 127 WATER SWMP £10k Yes & ELMER water inflow, appraisal based on integrated models YRS the areas ⌧ flooding WSCC flood mapping that flood
SOUTHERN 2 MIDDLETON-ON-SEA 2-5 ARUN Install tide flex flap on two current flap valves Reduce risk of failure 50 WATER SWMP £100k Yes Manage & ELMER YRS ⌧ WSCC flood risk
2 MIDDLETON-ON-SEA Install a headwall on the French drain, including for a 2-5 ARUN Reduce flood risk from the Elmer Rife Ditch 50 WSCC SWMP £1k Yes Manage & ELMER tide flex valve to enable drainage (Ancton Lane) YRS ⌧ flood risk
Reinstate / improve surface water drainage connection Reduce inflow into foul sewer system and 2 MIDDLETON-ON-SEA 2-5 ARUN to land drainage system north of Ancton Way. improve separation of flows. Remove 50 WSCC SWMP £20k Yes Manage & ELMER YRS ⌧ Remove flooding in Ancton Way and Elm Drive flooding in Ancton Way / Elm Drive flood risk
Reduce surface water inundation of foul Utilise Sustainable Drainage Systems where possible, 2 MIDDLETON-ON-SEA sewers and private connections. Reduce 2-5 ARUN in the estate. Attenuate surface water locally inside 427 WSCC SWMP £100k Yes Manage & ELMER magnitude of catchment flooding ie. YRS ⌧ catchment flood risk Controlled attenuation
Install a new surface water sewer system, inclusive of 2 MIDDLETON-ON-SEA 5-10 ARUN a dedicated surface water pumping station and rising Full catchment Solution 427 WSCC SWMP £600k Yes Manage & ELMER YRS ⌧ main discharging to sea serving the Hard flood risk
166 2 MIDDLETON-ON-SEA Install a new surface water sewer system in The Hard, Provide improved surface water drainage in 5-10 ARUN 50 WSCC SWMP £400k Yes Manage & ELMER gravitating to a new outfall the Hard YRS ⌧ flood risk Adoption of ‘Polder style’ drainage system. (inc re- Full solution. But, more applicable assuming SOUTHERN 2 MIDDLETON-ON-SEA 5-10 ARUN introduce old and new drainage ditches / Rife higher sea levels ie climate change higher 50 WATER SWMP £30k Yes Manage & ELMER YRS ⌧ Systems) groundwater conditions WSCC flood risk Work with the residents of Elmer and Flood Action WSCC 3 MIDDLETON-ON-SEA SWS, EA, WSCC, 2-5 ARUN Group to improve the standard of land drainage in the Improve existing local land drainage 0 FLOOD £1k Yes Work In progress & ELMER ADC YRS area REPORT together
1 SOUTHERN WSCC MIDDLETON-ON-SEA Progress the Lidsey Surface Water Management Plan Identify projects that can improve flood risk 0-2 Understand ARUN 0 WATER FLOOD £50k Yes In progress & ELMER after 2013 Winter data has been collected in the Lidsey Catchment YRS the areas WSCC REPORT that flood
1 Review the existing land drainage to understand to SOUTHERN WSCC MIDDLETON-ON-SEA Improve the effectiveness of the pumping 2-5 Understand ARUN understand and mitigate the impact on the waste water 0 WATER FLOOD £30k Yes & ELMER station near Sea Lane YRS the areas ⌧ pumping station at Sea Lane WSCC REPORT that flood
WSCC MIDDLETON-ON-SEA Work with the local community to identify the need for SWS, EA, WSCC, 2-5 4 ARUN Improve local flood resilience 0 FLOOD £1k Yes & ELMER ‘local community flood wardens’ ADC YRS Resilience ⌧ REPORT 1 Update and complete a detailed surface water WSCC MIDDLETON-ON-SEA SOUTHERN 2-5 Understand ARUN investigation into Hannah’s Groyne so as to Identify options for future improvement work 0 FLOOD £20k No & ELMER WATER YRS the areas ⌧ understand capacity and any future works required REPORT that flood 2 MIDDLETON-ON-SEA ENVIRONMENT 5-10 £1.2 ARUN Coastal defence works Reduce coastal flood risk to Elmer 124 MTP Yes Manage & ELMER AGENCY YRS million ⌧ flood risk
Assess whether structures can be modified : 1 Implement a desk top study and if necessary CCTV PAGHAM & ENVIRONMENT 5-10 Understand ARUN survey to investigate the culverts within the catchment, Investigate re-opening existing culverts 0 WFD £10k No NYETIMBER AGENCY YRS the areas ⌧ identifying those which can be removed or that flood improvements made (eg: alternation of channel bed).
2 PAGHAM & Improve the standard of protection to 0.5% ENVIRONMENT 0-2 £1.5 CHICHESTER Pagham Harbour Inland Defences 80 MTP Yes Manage NYETIMBER annual probability AGENCY YRS million ⌧ flood risk 2 PAGHAM & Reduce the erosion risk to the beach ARUN DISTRICT 0-2 ARUN Pagham Beach Erosion Control Scheme 15 MTP £650K Yes Manage NYETIMBER properties at Pagham Spit COUNCIL YRS ⌧ flood risk
PAGHAM & NYETIMBER, 1 BOGNOR REGIS & Provide plan for a consistant approach to ARUN DISTRICT 0-2 Understand FELPHAM, ARUN Arun to Pagham Beach Management Plan managing the beach frontage and the beach 0 Local Levy £290K Yes COUNCIL YRS the areas ⌧ MIDDLETON-ON-SEA profiles. that flood & ELMER, LITTLEHAMPTON
Consider the removal of hard engineering structures , 1 PULBOROUGH, bank reprofiling, and other opportunities to ENVIRONMENT 0-2 Understand MIDHURST, ARUN restore/create/enhance aquatic and marginal habitats Improve the modified habitat 0 WFD £100k No AGENCY YRS the areas ⌧ BILLINGSHURST (as part of the Upper Arun and Rother Adaptation that flood Works)
2 Improve the standard of protection to 1% ENVIRONMENT 0-2 £21 SELSEY WEST CHICHESTER Medmerry Managed Realignment 327 MTP No Manage annual probability AGENCY YRS million ⌧ flood risk
1 SELSEY WEST, Implementation of the Selsey, Bracklesham and East CHICHESTER Recharging beach levels, repairing failing 0-2 Understand SELSEY, EAST CHICHESTER Wittering Beach Management (5yrs 2016/17 to 675 DISTRICT None £900k Yes structures YRS the areas ⌧ WITTERING 2020/21) COUNCIL that flood
1 Investigate drainage and recommend SHOREHAM & Produce a Surface Water Management Plan for 5-10 Understand ADUR improvement works, plan would cover all the 0 WSCC CFMP £100k No LANCING Shoreham YRS the areas ⌧ catchment area East of the River Adur that flood
Improve flood resilience by the production of SHOREHAM & Produce a Multi Agency Flood Plan for Shoreham and 2-5 4 ADUR a response plan for Category 1 0 WSCC CFMP £1k No LANCING Lancing YRS Resilience ⌧ organisations
167 Improvement work in the Manor Way, A27 2 SHOREHAM & Ditch clearance and renovation in the A27 area of area, and Grinstead Lane, Monks Avenue, 2-5 ADUR Unknown ADUR DISTRICT None £67k No Manage LANCING Lancing Mash Barn Lane, Brierley Gardens, Hadlow YRS ⌧ flood risk Way and Barfield Park
2 SHOREHAM & Improve the standard of protection to 0.3% ENVIRONMENT 0-2 £26 ADUR Shoreham Adur Tidal Walls Scheme 2,214 MTP Yes Manage LANCING annual probability AGENCY YRS million ⌧ flood risk Investigate drainage and recommend 1 SHOREHAM & improvement works, covers the catchment 0-2 Understand ADUR Lancing Surface Water Management Plan 0 WSCC None £100k Yes ⌧ LANCING area to the Worthing administrative YRS the areas boundary West of the River Adur that flood
1 SHOREHAM, LACING Lower Tidal River Adur Flood Risk Management Recommend options for flood risk ENVIRONMENT 0-2 Understand ADUR 0 MTP £285K No ⌧ & SOMPTING Strategy management at the River Adur AGENCY YRS the areas that flood
2 ENVIRONMENT 2-5 £1.75 SIDLESHAM CHICHESTER Sidlesham inland banks Rebuilding of banks already in place 146 MTP Yes Manage AGENCY YRS million ⌧ flood risk
2 0-2 STORRINGTON HORSHAM A283 Storrington Road Drainage improvements 50 WSCC AMRM £75K No Manage YRS ⌧ flood risk
There are three culverts running underneath Desktop study, and CCTV survey if required, to 1 the Emsworth Mill. The potential to open investigate where culverts are located within the 5-10 Understand WESTBOURNE CHICHESTER these will be investigated. There may also 0 WSCC WFD £10k No waterbody, and if there are opportunities to improve or YRS the areas ⌧ be scope to improve the screening on the remove them. that flood culverts to better enable fish passage.
2 ENVIRONMENT 2-5 WESTBOURNE CHICHESTER River Ems flood alleviation scheme Address flood risk on the River Ems 210 MTP £2 million Yes Manage AGENCY YRS ⌧ flood risk
Consider the installation of the new screens to more 1 effectively remove solids and non-biodegradable WSCC SOUTHERN 2-5 Understand WORTHING WORTHING material at East Worthing waste water treatment Improve infrastructure resilience 0 FLOOD £2k No WATER YRS the areas ⌧ works and help protect the downstream process REPORT that flood equipment
Complete 12 month improvement project programmed Improve resilience by upgrading screening, for this catchment. The scheme includes pumping and overall capacity. This will in WSCC 2 SOUTHERN 2-5 WORTHING WORTHING refurbishment to the structure of the inlet works, turn lead to a reduction of reactive and 0 FLOOD £8 million No Manage WATER YRS ⌧ installation of new screens, and new pumps to temporary work that cause disruption and REPORT flood risk upgrade the pumping capacity. odour to the local neighbourhood
1 Survey the larger diameter sewer that is located close WSCC SOUTHERN 2-5 Understand WORTHING WORTHING to the treatment works to ensure that it operates at full Determine whether further work is required 0 FLOOD £2.5k No WATER YRS the areas ⌧ capacity. REPORT that flood
2 Cleaning of existing infrastructure to improve SOUTHERN 0-2 WORTHING WORTHING Cleaning of sewers in Worthing n/a n/a £3million No Manage conveyance WATER YRS ⌧ flood risk
Improve flood resilience by the production of 2-5 4 WORTHING WORTHING Produce a Multi Agency Flood Plan for Worthing a response plan for Category 1 0 WSCC CFMP £1k No YRS Resilience ⌧ organisations
WORTHING 2 Goring-by-sea - Development, delivery and Improve the standard of protection to 0.1% 0-2 £2.75 WORTHING WORTHING 368 BOROUGH MTP No Manage construction of replacement groynes annual probability YRS million ⌧ COUNCIL flood risk WORTHING 2 Worthing - Development, delivery and construction of Improve the standard of protection to 0.1% 0-2 £2.073 WORTHING WORTHING 340 BOROUGH Local Levy No Manage replacement groynes annual probability YRS million ⌧ COUNCIL flood risk
1 Provide plan for a consistant approach to WORTHING 0-2 Understand WORTHING WORTHING Worthing Beach Management Plan managing the beach frontage and the beach 0 BOROUGH Local Levy £250K No YRS the areas ⌧ profiles. COUNCIL that flood Analysis of Brooklands Lake and its outfalls WORTHING 2 2-5 WORTHING WORTHING Brooklands Lake analysis into the sea is needed regarding its future 0 BOROUGH SWMP £15k No Manage YRS ⌧ capacity and use as a balancing facility COUNCIL flood risk Investigation to identify whether public WORTHING 2 2-5 WORTHING WORTHING Worthing seafront area overtopping risk analysis spaces or highways could provide potential 0 BOROUGH SWMP £15k No Manage YRS ⌧ for attenuation COUNCIL flood risk Investigate surface water relief measures at WORTHING 2 2-5 WORTHING WORTHING Investigation work on the Teville Stream Homefield Park as part of the current park 0 BOROUGH SWMP £15k No Manage YRS ⌧ enhancement scheme. COUNCIL flood risk 2 A24/120 Horsham Road - North End House 0-2 WORTHING WORTHING Drainage improvements 50 WSCC AMRM £60k No Manage (Northbound) YRS ⌧ flood risk
1 WORTHING, FERRING Create a hydraulic model of the Ferring Rife to inform ENVIRONMENT 0-2 Understand WORTHING Understand the drainage of the Ferring Rife 0 MTP £50k No ⌧ COAST AND RIFE future recommendations AGENCY YRS the areas that flood
168 Joint Strategic Committee 6 February 2014 Agenda Item 8
Ward: All
Revised Housing Allocation Policies
Report by the Executive Head of Housing Health and Community Safety
1.0 Summary
1.1 As a result of the Localism Act and the issuing of further official guidance from DCLG in June 2012 and December 2013, it is opportune to review the options for the Councils’ allocations policies for social housing. This report details the changes in legislation and guidance which present the Councils with the opportunity to review existing policies and practices, and reports on the consultation recently carried out on the matter. It summarises the proposed changes to the existing policies, which in the end are not particularly far-reaching, and the reasons for those changes.
1.2 A revised draft policy is attached as Appendix 4 for members’ approval. The policy attached is Worthing’s but Adur’s will be separate but identical apart from the name.
2.0 Background
2.1 The Localism Act 2011 introduced a number of changes to Part VI of the Housing Act 1996 which sets out how housing registers should operate. In June 2012 formal guidance was issued and all Councils must have regard to the guidance when allocating housing either directly into a property owned by a Housing Authority or through the use of nominations. The guidance provides clarification on the flexibilities local authorities can exercise in the allocation of social housing. Local authorities are encouraged to develop their allocation schemes with a more strategic perspective.
2.2 The Councils are committed to using its Council stock and nominations to Housing Associations to prioritise need. The Housing Registers for each authority are therefore a ‘register’ of people in housing need rather than waiting lists.
The changes made through the Localism Act and introduced through statutory regulations include the following opportunities:
Removes the requirement to have an open register. Allows local authorities to use qualifying and non-qualifying criteria which determines eligibility to join the housing register.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 169 Allows tenants to move outside of the housing register where they do not meet the reasonable preference criteria. Removes the ability to disqualify some applicants through lack of local connection in some circumstances (e.g. armed forces covenant).
Although a number of changes were made the following principles were retained: Requirement to give reasonable preference to those in the reasonable preference groups over those that are not. Requirement that all those in the reasonable preference group irrespective of whether they fall in more than one group do receive reasonable preference. A statement on applicant must be included in the allocation scheme.
Reasonable preference categories
2.3 The statutory guidance reiterates the notion that social housing is principally aimed at those in greatest housing need. Therefore, priority for accommodation must be given to those who fall within the statutory reasonable preference categories, namely:
people who are homeless (within the meaning of Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996) people who are owed a duty by a local housing authority under s.190(2), 193(2), or 195(2) of the Housing Act 1996 (or under s. 65(2) or 68(2) of the Housing Act 1985) or who are occupying accommodation secured by any such authority under s. 192(3) people occupying insanitary or overcrowded housing, or otherwise living in unsatisfactory housing conditions people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds
Additional priority may be given to particular people within the reasonable preference categories who have urgent housing needs. The 2002 statutory allocation guidance suggests that additional preference could be given to:
those owed a homelessness duty as a result of violence or threats of violence likely to be carried out and as a result urgent rehousing is required. This could include: victims of domestic violence / racial harassment involving violence or threats of violence same sex couples who are victims of harassment involving violence or threats of violence witnesses of crime who would be at risk of intimidation leading to violence or threats of violence those who need to move because of urgent medical reasons.
Critically, the allocations policy should enable the identification of those with greatest housing need and determine how individuals will be prioritised for housing. The scheme should provide a clear description of how reasonable preference, and priority within reasonable preference, is determined and assessed. All schemes for determining priorities for lettings should reflect the range of needs that exist locally, and take account of reasonable preference categories as determined in law.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 170 Allocation schemes should recognise the need to ensure fair and equal access to social rented housing.
Existing policies
2.4 In July 2012 a report went to Cabinet Members responsible for housing matters which made minor revisions to the existing reasons for assessing applications in particular bands on the Housing Register. The aim was to ensure as far as possible that both Councils were applying legislation and guidance in a similar fashion and that the allocation policies were likely to meet the requirements of the new statutory guidance of June 2012.
2.5 The two Councils’ existing policies were generally felt by officers broadly to meet the requirements of legislation and guidance at that time and so the process of this review is mainly about the degree to which if at all the authorities wish to take advantage of the freedoms and flexibilities (and the concomitant responsibilities) that the Localism Act and revised guidance offer.
Armed forces:
It also gives an opportunity to revise and clarify the policies and associated documents so they reflect the practical procedures, for example with respect to how we deal with applicants from the Armed Forces. In this case the policy document does not include such information although our procedures are compliant with both the guidance and the Armed Forces Covenant, which both authorities signed up to, in that such households will not be disadvantaged through not having a “standard” local connection because they are living away in forces accommodation.
2.6 Issues put forward by the government such as not accepting housing register applications from people with a history of anti-social behaviour, and reducing priority to those with a debt to the Council are already covered by the Councils’ existing policies and do not change in the revised version.
Choice-based lettings schemes
2.7 Under choice-based lettings (CBL), applicants will continue to be given the opportunity to bid for vacant properties which are advertised. Accommodation will generally be allocated to the bidder in the highest band with longest waiting time under the scheme. However, because of the existing demand and length of time before a bid is likely to be successful in many cases, it has to be emphasised to applicants and those advocating on their behalf that the Housing Registers are not a “quick fix” for housing, even for those who meet qualification criteria from the start.
2.8 Main areas for consideration: we have looked particularly at the following issues and the options for dealing with them.
Residential qualifications and local connection criteria
A financial threshold (income and/or savings) for acceptance on to the registers
Priority for working households vs commitment to meet housing need. Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 171
Removal of Band D, where people are not in housing need at the time and/or have had their application downgraded for whatever reason (debts to the Councils etc).
Some areas have split their register into ‘active’ and ‘deferred’ register to manage the expectations of people who are bidding for properties when they are not realistically going to be housed through the register.
Equality and diversity
2.9 Existing equality impact assessments will be updated in the light of the new proposals, although the effects are anticipated to be minimal.
Consultation
2.10 Appendix 1 attached details the questions that were asked of consultees in order to look at suggested changes. The Councils’ consultation panel were used, and a link to the consultation on the Councils’ website was forwarded to all housing associations and other partners in the area. The appendix summarises the consultation responses.
3.0 Proposals
3.1 Adur District Council and Worthing Borough Council will continue to operate two separate Housing Registers. Only people who are eligible to be on the Housing Registers are allocated accommodation either with Adur Homes or Registered Providers operating across Adur and Worthing.
3.2 Separate Housing Registers for Adur and Worthing ensure that people living in the Adur District have priority for properties that become available with Adur Homes and Registered Providers in the Adur District and people living in the Worthing District have priority for properties that become available with Registered Providers in Worthing. The policies in relation to allocations already allow for some flexibility to be able to assist Adur applicants to move to Worthing and Worthing applicants to move to Adur if their housing needs are better met by doing so. Although the Housing Registers are best kept separate, as each individual authority has the duty to maintain such a register, it is intended to create a common application form.
3.3 Adur District Council adopted Choice Based Lettings in 2007 and Worthing in 2009. Choice Based Lettings is a system of advertising properties and allowing applicants to see the majority of properties that become available and choose the ones they are interested in moving to (although their level of housing need will determine whether they can actually be offered the property they want).
3.4 The Localism Act 2011 has enabled local authorities to adopt policies that set specific qualification criteria about who may join the housing register and be eligible for an allocation of social housing and who may not.
3.5 The policies for Adur and Worthing have not fundamentally changed but it is proposed to introduce specific qualification criteria as set out in section 3.3.3 of the Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 172 policies (attached for ease of reference as a separate appendix 2 to the report). The main points are summarised below:
a) Households with no local connection will not qualify.
b) Households will need to live or work in the area for a minimum period of 6 months before they qualify.
c) Households with income over £60,000 per annum and households who own property (either in the UK or abroad), or have a level of savings that will enable them to resolve their housing position themselves, will not qualify.
d) Existing tenants of social housing providers with no housing need will not qualify.
e) Members and former members of the British armed forces will qualify (whether they are serving in the UK or abroad).
f) Households placed in the area by another local authority will not qualify.
3.6 Probably the main change being proposed is to introduce a residential qualification period, replacing the previous open registers. There is a subtle difference between such a qualification, and having a local connection. At present anyone can join the register but in practice people with a local connection have priority generally over those who do not. A residential qualification will now generally be necessary to be accepted on to the register in the first place, unless the specific criteria outlined in Appendix 2 below are met.
3.7 It is acknowledged that the Secretary of State, in the statutory guidance issued in December 2013, to which we must have regard in framing our policies, believes that a reasonable period of residency would be at least two years before applicants qualify for an offer of social housing. This is not the same thing as having to wait two years before being accepted on to the Housing Register. As the average waiting times after a person has registered for housing is two to three years, a six month residency qualification has been proposed, as the majority of applicants will not be allocated a property until they have been resident in the relevant district/borough for at least two years. A six month residential qualification prior to going on to the Register will therefore satisfy the provisions of the statutory guidance as currently written.
3.8 Excluding people with no local connection and those not living in the area will result in some households being removed from the Housing Registers (approximately 231 in Adur and 78 in Worthing). The implementation of these changes to the policy will ensure that local homes are given to local people and that people without a connection to the area will not be allocated social housing.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 173 3.9 The question of whether to offer additional preference to working households over non-working ones was considered but it is felt that this would give rise to a number of practical issues. For example, if employment was on short term contracts or if an individual was in and out of work, their priority would fluctuate accordingly, giving rise to uncertainty and confusion and also a considerable amount of unproductive administrative work. If a working household in the private rented sector has a property which has become unaffordable to them as a result of low paid employment, provision exists to grant additional priority in respect of this in the policy already. There is therefore no need for additional preference for working families in such cases.
3.10 It is also recommended that Band D should be retained. Band D enables the Council to register people who may have no housing need at the time they apply but are likely to continue to live in the area and have a housing need in the future (for example, a couple who are expecting a baby living in a one bedroom flat would be Band D at the point of application but Band C once the baby is born). Band D also includes categories of reduced priority which means that applicants who have a level of housing need but, for example, have a debt owed to the Council, can be placed in Band D until their debt is addressed.
3.11 Additional qualification bars to going on to the Housing Register, such as a history of anti-social behaviour or debts to the authority, are not being recommended as these powers already exist in the current policies.
3.12 Most neighbouring authorities have reviewed their allocation policies with varying results, as can be seen from the matrix attached as Appendix 3. The most popular residential qualification is around two years, but the degree to which the various freedoms and flexibilities regarding housing have been taken up varies across the board.
4.0 Legal
4.1 Part 6 of the 1996 Housing Act (amended) governs the allocation of local authority housing stock, it was amended by the 2002 Homelessness Act and by the Localism Act 2011.
4.2 The guidance (Allocation of accommodation: guidance for local housing authorities in England) referred to throughout the report is issued to local housing authorities in England under section 169 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Councils’ are required to have regard to it in exercising their functions under Part 6 of the 1996 Act. The proposals outlined in the report are in line with the guidance.
5.0 Financial implications
5.1 There are no financial implications for the authorities arising out of these changes in themselves. If a longer period of residential qualification were to be imposed, it is the officers’ view that this would put the authorities at risk of more homelessness acceptances potentially as people would be unable to access social housing. This would be likely to lead to a consequent increase in temporary accommodation and/or bed and breakfast costs.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 174
6.0 Recommendation
6.1 Joint Strategic Committee is recommended
i) To note and agree the changes proposed above to the allocation policies of both Councils; and
ii) To approve the allocation policy document for each authority as attached as Appendix 4, noting especially the changes in paragraph 3.3.3 (reproduced as Appendix 2) with regard to residential qualification.
Local Government Act 1972 Background Papers:
DCLG: Allocation of accommodation: Guidance for local housing authorities in England: June 2012
DCLG: Providing social housing for local people: December 2013
Contact Officer:
Paul Spedding Executive Head of Housing Health and Community Safety Portland House, Richmond Road, Worthing BN11 1HS 01273 263363 [email protected]
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 175 Schedule of Other Matters
1.0 Council Priority
1.1 Supporting and improving the local economy: Enable new homes to be built to help meet the housing needs of our communities;
Protecting front line services: Fulfil statutory obligations for delivery of front line services
2.0 Specific Action Plans
2.1 Adur and Worthing Housing Strategy 2012-17:
Meet affordable housing need; Provide a high quality housing service
3.0 Sustainability Issues
3.1 Matter considered and no issues identified
4.0 Equality Issues
4.1 The report seeks to balance the government’s expectations to prioritise housing for local families with the known pressure on social housing stock.
5.0 Community Safety Issues (Section 17)
5.1 Matter considered and no issues identified
6.0 Human Rights Issues
6.1 Matter considered and no issues identified
7.0 Reputation
7.1 Proposals aim to ensure that the Councils can be seen to be complying with government priorities and allocating social housing in a fair and transparent manner. Revised policy document clarifies the position with regard to ex-forces personnel applying for housing.
8.0 Consultations
8.1 Contained in the body of the report
9.0 Risk Assessment
9.1 Matter considered and no issues identified
10.0 Health & Safety Issues
10.1 Matter considered and no issues identified
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 176
11.0 Procurement Strategy
11.1 Matter considered and no issues identified
12.0 Partnership Working
12.1 The Councils continue to work in partnership with Registered Providers of social housing.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 177 Appendix 1: Public consultation results
Housing Register Allocations The Localism Act 2011 introduced a number of changes to how the housing register should operate.
The answers to the questions below will help enable the Council to identify those with the greatest need and to determine which individuals will be prioritised for housing
1. Do you agree that people who do not have a local connection should be excluded from the Housing Register?
71.8% Yes 23.4% No 4.8% No view
2. Do you agree that people should live in the area for a minimum of 6 months before being allowed to join the Housing Register?
77.4% Yes 20.6% No 2.0% No view
3. If a person does not live in the area but is working in the area, do you agree that they should have been working in the area for a minimum of 6 months before being allowed to join the Housing Register?
76.6% Yes 20.5% No 2.9% No view
4. Do you agree that tenants of the Council or a Housing Association should not be allowed to join the Housing Register unless there are medical needs to move or if they are moving to a smaller or larger property?
64.3% Yes 25.8% No 9.8% No view
5. Do you agree that tenants of Councils or Housing Associations who do not live in Adur or Worthing should be excluded from the Housing Register?
56.9% Yes 37.0% No 6.1% No view
6. Do you agree that households who have an income of £60,000 or more per year should be excluded from the Housing Register?
90.3% Yes 6.9% No 2.8% No view
Please could you also answer the following questions to help us identify your interest in this area.
7. Are you on the Housing Register?
17.6% Yes 82.4% No
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 178 8. Are you applying to join the Housing Register?
5.0% Yes 95.0% No
9. Are you a tenant of the Council or a Housing Association?
24.5% Yes 75.5% No
10. Are you a professional person (statutory or voluntary sector) working with people in housing need?
4.1% Yes 95.9% No
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 179 Appendix 2: Revised residential / employment qualification criteria
(Extract from draft full policy document)
“Adur / Worthing” below: Each authority’s policy document will refer individually to one or other Council in the final version.
3.3.3 Qualification criteria
The following categories of people qualify to join the Register of Housing Need:
a) People who are currently residing in Adur / Worthing and have resided in Adur / Worthing for at least the last six months on a continuous basis. This residence must be proven and verified.
b) People who do not reside in Adur / Worthing but are employed in Adur / Worthing and this employment has been ongoing on a continuous basis for at least the last six months and is likely to continue on an ongoing basis. Employment must be proven and verified and must be paid employment which is regular and significant in nature and be for a minimum of 15 hours per week on average. Zero hours contracts will not be considered as regular employment for the purposes of this policy.
c) Serving members of the British armed forces (or those who have served in the previous five years), and bereaved spouses or civil partners of those serving in the armed forces, who are residing in Military of Defence accommodation and serving or former members of the British armed forces who have a serious injury, illness or disability as a result of their service.
d) People who do not live in Adur / Worthing but live in accommodation that is not suitable for their housing needs, and have a local connection to Adur District/ Worthing Borough Council as defined in Section 22 of this Policy, and who have an overriding proven need to move to the Adur / Worthing area, and there is accommodation likely to become available in Adur / Worthing that is suitable to meet their housing needs (people who qualify in this category will not take priority over people who already live in the area so will only be assessed in Band C or D and will not qualify to be in Band A or B). People wanting to move to receive or give support to immediate family members must demonstrate the levels of support that will be provided and why this cannot be provided in their current accommodation.
e) Current tenants of Adur District Council or current tenants of Registered Providers in Adur District Council or Worthing Borough Council who have an identified housing need, for example, there is a need to move to smaller or larger accommodation or there is a need to move for medical reasons. Tenants who are living in accommodation that has adaptations that are no longer needed for the household will also qualify.
f) People who are currently living outside of Adur / Worthing on a temporary basis (who had previously lived in Adur / Worthing and have a local connection to Adur / Worthing, or people living in accommodation provided by or arranged by Adur /
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 180 Worthing Council, or other such exceptional circumstances, as approved by the Housing Services Manager (or equivalent).
The following categories of people do not qualify to join the Register of Housing Need:
g) People who do not reside in Adur / Worthing and do not have a local connection to Adur.
h) People who reside in Adur / Worthing but have not resided in Adur / Worthing on a continuous basis for at least the last six months and do not have a local connection to Adur / Worthing.
i) Current tenants of Registered Providers in Adur or Worthing whose accommodation meets their housing needs (in accordance with this policy).
j) Current tenants (or people who live with current tenants) of Local Authorities or Registered Providers and the tenancy is not in either Adur or Worthing (except those who would qualify under criteria 3.3.3b and 3.3.3d).
k) People who are owed a statutory housing duty by another local authority (either District or Borough Council or County Council) or people who are living in accommodation in Adur / Worthing that has been provided or arranged by another local authority.
l) People who own a property or have an interest in a property, either in the UK or abroad, and that property reasonably meets their housing needs or there is sufficient equity to be able to sell the property and purchase or rent suitable alternative accommodation to meet their needs.
m) People who have a combined household income of £60,000 or more.
n) People who have a significant amount of savings or capital that would enable them to secure suitable accommodation to meet their housing needs.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 181 Appendix 3: Adur and Worthing; Arun Chichester Crawley Horsham Mid Sussex Comparison of West Separate Housing Sussex Allocation Registers working to Policies same criteria Allocations Policy Being reviewed:To Updated September Updated July 2013 Updated December Adopted April 2013 Conducting options Cabinets February 2012 2013 appraisal for revised 2014 policy: following refers to existing policy Open or closed? Currently open but Closed Closed Closed wef 16.12.13 Closed Open about to close Local connection? Those who do not live Applicant or partner to Currently reside in Lived in district Lived in settled - Resided in district for in the Adur/Worthing have lived in Arun district and have done continuously for past 3 accommodation in at least 6 out of last 12 area and those who District permanently so for preceding 2 years. District for 2 years. months have no local for min 5 years prior to years. Resided in Have immediate family - Resided in district for connection can be application date, or 10 district for 4 our of last member living in 3 out of last 5 years given reduced priority out of last 15 years. 6 years. Currently district who have done (minimum) and placed in Band D. Applicant to have employed in district so continously for last - have close relative Criterion is 6 months worked on full or p/t for at least past 12 5 years. who have lived in or three of last five basis (24 hrs per week) months (to include min Held permanent paid district for at least years: broadly similar in Arun district for past 20hrs per week within employment in district previous 5 years to that contained 2 years and remains in the district). Need to for last 5 years. within the homeless employment in Arun live in the district to Serving or former legislation with the District. provide/receive care members of Armed exception of those Applicant or partner to/from close relative Forces are excluded being placed in the needs to be in Arun who has lived from residency criteria, area or accessing District to give/receive continuously in district as are accepted supported housing in support from/for close for at least 5 years. homeless applicants this area from other relative who is Other exceptional (fleeing DV etc) areas (these are not permanently resident circumstances might considered to have a in Arun and lived here be reasonably local connection) permanently for at considered to least 10 years prior to constitute local application date. connection as agreed by Asst Director and Exceptions:- Portfolio Holder. members of Armed Specific exceptions for Forces and former members of Armed Service Personnel Forces and those who Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 182 where application is have been discharged made within 5 years of in previous 5 years. discharge Applicant accepted as being owed main homeless duty. Bidding restrictions? Priority can be reduced Generally do not Bid for max 3 Allowed 2 refusals Direct nominations; no Applicants can bid for for people who have penalise for refusals. properties in any then excluded. CBL and refuse as many successfully bid for Restriction given to bidding cycle. 12 week Applicants accepted as properties as they several suitable Band A applicants to time period for Band A homeless who refuse want properties which have place bids within applicants to bid - if one offer of suitable been offered to them certain time frame fail, Homemove Team accommodation will but which they refuse. otherwise banding will place bids on their no longer qualify and Duty can be discharged may be downgraded. behalf. Failure to homelessness duty will to a homeless accept a suitable offer be discharged. household who will result in loss of successfully bids for a priority. Accepted property that they homeless applicants then refuse. have to bid within 8 weeks or team will bid on their behalf. Review of applicants periodically and will remove applicants who have not bid for 6 months unless respond to letters to say they wish to remain on Register. Affordability criteria? No affordability If total income is 4 x Those with incomes of W.e.f. 16.12.13 - Disqualified if total Exclusion from criteria that excluds greater than LHA or 4 times the LHA rate applicants with income annual income exceeds H/Register if have from Register. they have savings in for the size of home over £45k will no £60k (joint applicants) income of £60k+, or if However, those who excess of £16k, will be they are entitled to are longer qualify. or £30k (single) and/or own a home or have a are homeowners or considered as having excluded. . Also, those Applicants who own a savings of £16k+ legal interest in a who have significant sufficient financial with capital in excess property will no longer property capital assets/savings resources to meet of £16k and applicants qualify. are given reduced their housing need in with legal interest in a priority and placed in full. To be reviewed in property. Band D. April each year. Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 183 On-line Application? No online application Yes - includes a pre- Yes No - applicants only No - applicants wishing Yes form as potential access questionnaire allowed to apply after to join Register or applicants are spoken to filter out non- discussion of their present as homeless to prior to submitting eligibles. housing need and best must visit council and an application. option. speak to Housing Officer. Priority given to those Households placed in Applicants accepted as Placed in Band C Applicants accepted as Bands A B and C Placed in Band A accepted as homeless? interim homeless are homeless and placed accommodation and prioritised in Band A in temp accom such as then temporary and retain that priority B&B/hostel are placed accommodation once whilst in temp accom in Band A. they are accepted as (can include B&B, Applicants accepted as homeless are generally hostel and stock homeless and living in placed in Band C properties) suitable self-contained (Some exceptions if temp accom are overriding medical placed in Band B. conditions or Accepted homeless affodability issues applicants living in any associated with cost of type of temp accom TA) who refuse an offer of suitable PRS accom prior to making their homeless application will be placed in Band C. Homeless applicants in this band will be offered suitable private rented as per PRA offer policy to discharge homelessness duty. Homeless applicants who accept an offer of suitable PRS without need for temp accom will be in band B.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 184 Appendix 4
Worthing Borough Council
Register of Housing Need
and
Choice Based Lettings
Policy
6 February 2014 (original Policy 30 November 2009 and updated 30 July 2012)
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 185
Section Page No
Contents Page 2 - 4
1. Introduction 5
2. Choice and Empowerment 6 – 7 2.1 Statement of Choice 6 2.2 Equalities and Diversity 6 2.3 Vulnerability 7
3. Register of Housing Need 8 – 12 3.1 What is the Register of Housing Need? 8 3.2 Who can apply to join the Register of Housing 8 Need? 8 3.3 Who cannot join the Register of Housing Need? 8 3.3.1 Persons from abroad who are subject to immigration control 9 3.3.2 Serious unacceptable behavior 10 ……3.3.3 Qualification criteria 3.4 Can people reapply once they have been excluded 11 from the Register of Housing Need? 3.5 What happens when a person applies to join the 12 Register of Housing Need 13 3.6 Medical Needs 13 3.7 Change of circumstances 3.8 Re-registrations
4. Choice Based Lettings 14 4.1 The guiding principles of the Choice Based 14 Lettings Scheme
5. The Banding Structure 14 – 20 5.1 How are applicants banded? 14 5.2 How do the Bands give priority for housing? 14 5.3 The four priority Bands 15 5.4 What size properties can applicants bid for? 19
6. Reasonable preference 21 6.1 Do certain applicants get preference over others? 21 6.2 Reduced priority 21
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 186
7. How properties are advertised 22 – 23 7.1 How available properties are advertised 22 7.2 The eligibility for each property 22
8. Bidding for properties 23 8.1 The bidding process 23
9. Selection of applicants 24 – 25 9.1 The selection process 24 9.2 Viewings by successful bidders 24
10. Shortlisting of applicants 25 10.1 How shortlisting takes place 25
11. Local lettings plans & sensitive lets 26 11.1 Balanced communities 26 11.2 Sensitive allocations 26 11.3 Making best use of social housing 26
12. Time limits 27 12.1 Time limits for bidding on properties 27
13. Properties not advertised – direct lettings 27 – 28 13.1 Direct lettings 27
14. Refusals 28 – 29 14.1 Refusals following direct lettings 28 14.2 Reasonable offers and refusals 29
15. Feedback 29 15.1 Feedback on let properties 29
16. Homelessness 29 - 30
17. Other housing solutions 30 - 31 17.1 Alternatives to rented accommodation with a 30 Registered Provider 17.2 Private sector housing options 30 17.3 Help for home owners 30 17.4 Supported housing schemes 30
18. Registered Providers and their policies 31 – 32 Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 187 18.1 Registered Providers in Worthing 31 18.2 Registered Providers’ policies 31
19. Other information and review 32 – 33 19.1 Rights to information and review 32
20. Data Protection and False Information 33 20.1 Data Protection 33 20.2 False Information 33
21. Consultation and Equality Impact Assessment 33 – 34 21.1 Consultation 33 21.2 Equality Impact Assessment 34
22. Terms and definitions 35 – 38 22.1 Definitions of terms referred to in this policy 35
1. Introduction
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 188 The Register of Housing Need and Choice Based Lettings Policy is intended to make the best use of social housing in Worthing, match available housing to those in the highest housing need, and give people more personal choice about where they wish to live. This policy has been adopted by Worthing Borough Council and sets out the purpose of the Register of Housing Need and the operation of a Choice Based Lettings Scheme.
Worthing Borough Council is part of the Sussex Homemove Partnership operating a sub- regional Choice Based Lettings scheme. Each local authority within the partnership has its own policy but the assessment of applicants and the principles of each scheme are broadly similar. This creates more consistency in the allocation of social housing across Districts and Boroughs in Sussex.
The Council is required by section 167 of the Housing Act 1996 to have a system of allocating properties that gives choice to applicants1. This policy sets out the priorities and procedures for the Council’s nominations to Registered Providers (RP’s). The Register of Housing Need and Choice Based Lettings Policy applies to existing RP tenants in Worthing who want to transfer to another RP tenancy and to new applicants applying for housing.
This policy meets the requirements set out in Part VI of the Housing Act 1996 (as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002 and the Localism Act 2011) and relevant Statutory Guidance2. The policy gives reasonable preference to those applicants in the greatest housing need. It also aims to ensure that the allocation of social housing is carried out in a way that is efficient, cost effective, customer focused, and accessible. This is achieved by increasing access to services via the internet, and having more transparent information available to customers about social housing. In addition, a partnership approach to Choice Based Lettings across several authorities in Sussex provides more cost effective and efficient services by sharing development and running costs.
Choice Based Lettings give greater personal choice to all those seeking housing and enable individuals to make informed choices about their housing options. The Choice Based Lettings Scheme is the set of rules by which we aim to treat everyone fairly and give the appropriate priority for housing. Choice Based Lettings encourage better use of the housing stock with Registered Providers by maximising the length of tenancies (as people have chosen their properties) and encouraging residents to have a stake in their community.
This policy sets out how people’s circumstances are assessed when applying for housing. A banding system, made up of four bands, is used to assess and prioritise housing need. All applicants receive information to advise them how to search for a property through the scheme, which is called Homemove. Available properties with Registered Providers are advertised and applicants can use different methods to express their interest in the properties they want. This is referred to as ‘bidding’ and full details of the ‘bidding’ process are explained later in this policy. 2. Choice and Empowerment
1 Section 167(1) and (1A) of the Housing Act 1996 as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002 2 Fair and flexible: statutory guidance on social housing allocations for local authorities in England, published in December 2009; the Allocation of accommodation: guidance for local housing authorities in England, published in June 2012; Providing social housing for local people: statutory guidance on social housing allocations for local authorities in England, published in December 2013. Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 189
2.1 Statement of Choice
All applicants eligible to join the Register of Housing Need (see Section 3 of this policy) can exercise choice over which part of the Borough they wish to reside in. Applicants are able to apply their preferences by bidding for the properties they want. However, all properties are let by a Registered Provider on the basis of household size and any other proven specialist requirements, e.g. a proven medical need for ground floor accommodation.
A Choice Based Lettings Scheme empowers applicants to make personal choices about where they want to live. The system offers transparency about properties that are available so applicants can be realistic about the choices they make. Some applicants may need greater assistance to understand and actively participate in Choice Based Lettings. The Council aims to guide and support applicants applying for housing and participating in Choice Based Lettings. Consideration is given below to equality, diversity and vulnerability issues.
2.2 Equality and Diversity
Worthing Borough Council is committed to providing and promoting services that are fair and equitable to all its customers. The Council seeks to ensure that services are accessible to all, and that no one applying for housing is disadvantaged on the grounds of age, disability, gender, race, religion/belief, or sexual orientation.
The process for allocating accommodation outlined in this policy is intended to be fair and transparent. The banding system allows people to identify why they are placed in a certain band as it is based on their current circumstances. Available properties are advertised and information is available about properties that have been let (for example, which band the successful applicant was in, how long they had been waiting in that band and how many bids were received).
Regular monitoring can be carried out to identify those people who have applied for housing but who have not registered an interest in any properties that have become available. Contact is made with those people to make sure they know how to access the Choice Based Lettings Scheme or to arrange for appropriate support to assist them. This covers all groups of people and provides a safety net to ensure that the scheme is accessible to all.
A summary of this policy is available, on request, in other formats, for example, large print or other languages. Alternatively, interpretation services can be arranged, on request, for staff to verbally explain the policy to applicants. The Scheme User Guide that explains how the Choice Based Lettings Scheme works across Sussex is sent to all applicants and is also available on request in other formats and in other languages.
No particular group(s) of people should be disadvantaged by this policy (see 21.2).
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 190 2.3 Vulnerability
Social exclusion can arise where social, economic and cultural factors combine to exclude individuals and groups from accessing economic, cultural and social resources and from participating in the community. A person or group of people can be considered vulnerable when appropriate support is needed to enable or promote independent living and active participation in the community. When a vulnerable person does not receive support, social exclusion of a person or group can occur.
Although no particular groups of people are identified as being disadvantaged by this Policy, some people may need help to apply to join the Register of Housing Need and participate in Choice Based Lettings. Help is available from Housing Services staff to assist applicants to complete the Register of Housing Need application form. Home visits are carried out to those people unable to come to the Council office. Regular monitoring takes place to ensure that people with the highest housing need are actively participating in the Choice Based Lettings Scheme.
People requiring help to participate in Choice Based Lettings receive the level of support appropriate to their needs. The questionnaire attached to this Policy at Appendix 1 gives examples of the type of help people may need. People who need help, and do not already have support in place, are identified if they have not expressed an interest in available properties, from their application form, or by contacting the Council. Assistance is available from Housing Services at Worthing Borough Council and from other services who work with people who are in housing need, for example, housing related support services.
3. Register of Housing Need
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 191
3.1 What is the Register of Housing Need?
The Register of Housing Need is the register of people who want to be housed in the Borough of Worthing.
3.2 Who can apply to join the Register of Housing Need?
The Register of Housing Need is open to people who are 16 years of age and over who are eligible and who qualify in accordance with this policy. There are certain classes of people that are excluded from joining this register and details of who qualifies and who does not qualify are set out in section 3.3.3.
To apply, a Register of Housing Need application form must be completed and certain information is requested to confirm the details of those applying (for example, proof of identity and details of current and previous accommodation). An application will usually need to be submitted to Housing Services in person with original documents to be able to verify the identity of those applying. This ensures that applications are assessed fairly in accordance with this policy and that only those who are eligible to apply are able to do so.
3.3 Who cannot join the Register of Housing Need?
Certain groups of people are ineligible because of their immigration status and the Council may disqualify applicants because of their unacceptable behaviour. In addition, the Localism Act 2011 enables Local Authorities to use their own qualifying criteria and the Statutory Guidance published in December 20133 encourages Councils to include a residency requirement as part of their qualification criteria4.
3.3.1 Persons from abroad who are subject to immigration control
Some persons from abroad fall within government regulations as being a person who is ‘subject to immigration control’5, and cannot be nominated to a Registered Provider for accommodation. They are therefore excluded from entry on the Register of Housing Need and referred to as ‘ineligible’. The Housing Act 1996 (as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002) specifies the classes of people who are ‘subject to immigration control’ and who cannot be given assistance with housing.
3 Providing social housing for local people: Statutory guidance on social housing allocations for local authorities in England, Department for Communities and Local Government, December 2013 4 It is acknowledged that the Secretary of State believes that a reasonable period of residency would be at least two years before applicants qualify for an offer of social housing. As the average waiting times after a person has registered for housing is two to three years, a six month residency qualification has been adopted so the majority of applicants will not be allocated a property until they have been resident in Worthing for at least two years. 5 Within the meaning of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 192 Special provisions in relation to immigration control may be introduced from time to time due to specific situations occurring in a country or in a particular area of a country. This means that the classes of people who are subject to immigration control are subject to change. Therefore, a complete list of all the categories of those that are ineligible at any one time cannot be provided in this policy. However, the general classes of people who are ineligible and excluded from the Register of Housing Need are:
A person registered with the United Kingdom Border Agency as an asylum seeker; A person or visitor to this country (including overseas students) who has valid leave to enter or remain in the UK on the condition that they do not have recourse to public funds; A person whose only right to reside in the UK, Channel Islands, Isle of Man or the Republic of Ireland is because they are ‘economically active’; A person who is not habitually resident in the Common Travel Area; A person who is a national of a non-European Economic Area; A person who is a national of a European country who has the right to reside in the UK but is deemed not to be eligible for an allocation of social housing by relevant enacted legislation (e.g. by a statutory instrument); A ‘sponsored person’ who has been in the country less than five years and any other person who is in the UK illegally or who has overstayed their leave.
3.3.2 Serious unacceptable behaviour
An applicant will be excluded from the Register of Housing Need when he or she (or a member of his or her household) has demonstrated unacceptable behaviour. This unacceptable behaviour must be such that if the applicant was a tenant of the Council, the Council would be entitled to a Possession Order (in accordance with Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1985).
This behaviour includes the following and any such amendments made to Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1985:
Rent arrears or breach of tenancy conditions; Involvement in serious nuisance or annoyance to neighbours; Conviction for using accommodation or allowing its use for illegal or immoral purposes; Conviction of an arrestable offence committed in the locality; Domestic abuse causing a partner or other family member to leave the property; Causing damage to the property or allowing the property to be seriously damaged or neglected; Obtaining a tenancy on the basis of a false statement; Eviction from social housing for nuisance or harassment (racial or otherwise) where this behaviour is apparent at the time of application;
The unacceptable behaviour must be serious enough to make the applicant unsuitable to be a tenant.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 193 The applicant must be unsuitable at the time the application is considered. Each application is assessed on its merit and consideration is given to the length of time that has elapsed since the unacceptable behaviour occurred and whether there has been any change in circumstances.
3.3.3 Qualification criteria
The following categories of people qualify to join the Register of Housing Need:
o) People who are currently residing in Worthing and have resided in Worthing for at least the last six months on a continuous basis. This residence must be proven and verified.
p) People who do not reside in Worthing but are employed in Worthing and this employment has been ongoing on a continuous basis for at least the last six months and is likely to continue on an ongoing basis. Employment must be proven and verified and must be paid employment which is regular and significant in nature and be for a minimum of 15 hours per week on average. Zero hours contracts will not be considered as regular employment for the purposes of this policy.
q) Serving members of the British armed forces (or those who have served in the previous five years), and bereaved spouses or civil partners of those serving in the armed forces, who are residing in Military of Defence accommodation and serving or former members of the British armed forces who have a serious injury, illness or disability as a result of their service.
r) People who do not live in Worthing but live in accommodation that is not suitable for their housing needs, and have a local connection to Worthing Borough Council as defined in Section 22 of this Policy, and who have an overriding proven need to move to the Worthing area, and there is accommodation likely to become available in Worthing that is suitable to meet their housing needs (people who qualify in this category will not take priority over people who already live in the area so will only be assessed in Band C or D and will not qualify to be in Band A or B). People wanting to move to receive or give support to immediate family members must demonstrate the levels of support that will be provided and why this cannot be provided in their current accommodation.
s) Current tenants of Adur District Council or current tenants of Registered Providers in Adur District Council or Worthing Borough Council who have an identified housing need, for example, there is a need to move to smaller or larger accommodation or there is a need to move for medical reasons. Tenants who are living in accommodation that has adaptations that are no longer needed for the household will also qualify.
t) People who are currently living outside of Worthing on a temporary basis (who had previously lived in Worthing and have a local connection to Worthing, or people living in accommodation provided by or arranged by Worthing Borough Council, or other such exceptional circumstances, as approved by the Housing Services Manager (or equivalent).
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 194 The following categories of people do not qualify to join the Register of Housing Need:
u) People who do not reside in Worthing and do not have a local connection to Worthing.
v) People who reside in Worthing but have not resided in Worthing on a continuous basis for at least the last six months and do not have a local connection to Worthing.
w) Current tenants of Registered Providers in Adur or Worthing whose accommodation meets their housing needs (in accordance with this policy).
x) Current tenants (or people who live with current tenants) of Local Authorities or Registered Providers and the tenancy is not in either Adur or Worthing (except those who would qualify under criteria 3.3.3b and 3.3.3d).
y) People who are owed a statutory housing duty by another local authority (either District or Borough Council or County Council) or people who are living in accommodation in Worthing that has been provided or arranged by another local authority.
z) People who own a property or have an interest in a property, either in the UK or abroad, and that property reasonably meets their housing needs or there is sufficient equity to be able to sell the property and purchase or rent suitable alternative accommodation to meet their needs.
aa) People who have a combined household income of £60,000 or more.
bb) People who have a significant amount of savings or capital that would enable them to secure suitable accommodation to meet their housing needs.
3.4 Can people reapply once they have been excluded from the Register of Housing Need?
Where a person is excluded from the Register of Housing Need, a fresh application will be considered if: the immigration status of the applicant has changed; or the applicant can demonstrate that there has been a significant improvement in their behaviour; or outstanding rent arrears have been paid in full or an arrangement to clear outstanding rent arrears over a reasonable period has been established and maintained for at least the last six months; or there has been a material change in the circumstances of the applicant or a member of their household (for example, an illness or disability has developed or an existing medical condition has worsened); or twelve months have passed since the date of exclusion; or the applicant did not previously meet the qualification criteria but the criteria is now met .
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 195 There is a review procedure if a person is excluded from or removed from the Register of Housing Need. This procedure is set out in section 19 of this policy.
3.5 What happens when a person applies to join the Register of Housing Need?
An application form is completed and assessed in accordance with this policy.
The applicant in placed into one of four bands: A, B C or D.
The prospects of rehousing depend on an applicant’s housing need compared to others.
Priority is given according to:
The applicant’s housing need, reflected by the band they are placed in.
A local connection to Worthing. Local connection is defined in section 22 of this policy.
The length of time an applicant has been in that band.
The aim of this policy is to house those most in need first. This is done by using the banding system which is summarised in section 5 of this policy.
Once the completed application form has been assessed, an acknowledgement letter is sent to advise the applicant of their banding, registration number and registration date. The following information is provided:
Priority Band and reason for it. Priority date. What size property the applicant can bid for (based on how many bedrooms the applicant is entitled to in accordance with this policy). Mobility group (physical disability level) if applicable.
Home visits may be carried out to assist an applicant to complete an application form and to verify the circumstances of applicants.
3.6 Medical needs
The following factors are taken into account when an assessment is carried out to determine which band is appropriate:
Illness / medical condition Physical disability Mental health problems Care needs Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 196 Support needs
The assessment looks at whether the above are affected by the current housing situation of an applicant, or whether there are specific requirements in relation to alternative accommodation. When carrying out an assessment any treatment, care or support an applicant may be receiving is taken into account to decide the appropriate level of priority given to an application.
Applicants can supply additional information from a GP or other relevant health professional(s) in support of their application if they so chose. However, if the health professional charges a fee to provide this information, it is the responsibility of the applicant to pay the fee. The Council may choose to make its own enquiries into the medical needs of an applicant and will meet reasonable charges where appropriate.
A manager within the Housing Services team or an alternative officer at an equal or higher position within the Authority, carries out the assessment of medical information provided in support of an application. This officer is referred to as the ‘Medical Assessor’ for the purpose of this policy. The medical information provided may enable the Medical Assessor to decide the level of medical priority given to an application. Alternatively, the Medical Assessor may conclude that further enquires are needed before a decision can be made. The Medical Assessor may seek advice and guidance from the Council’s medical adviser in making a decision.
3.7 Change of circumstances
Applicants are responsible for telling the Council of any changes in their circumstances that may affect their application, for example, change of address, family size, income (including savings and investments). The Council must be notified of any change of circumstances in writing. Applications cannot be amended without a signed authority (which includes electronic communication). Applicants who do not inform the Council of changes may miss the opportunity of being considered for suitable vacancies that become available.
3.8 Re-registrations
All applications are renewed on an annual basis (or sooner if changes occur). The Council writes to applicants to ask them to confirm that they still wish to be on the Register of Housing Need. If an applicant does not respond within the time specified, their application is removed from the Register of Housing Need. An applicant can re-apply later but the application will only be registered at the date of the new application and their priority date is based on their new application. Therefore, any time priority, linked to an earlier priority date from a previous application, is lost.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 197
4. Choice Based Lettings
4.1 The Guiding Principles of the Choice Based Lettings Scheme
To balance housing need and the requirement for customer choice in lettings; To harmonize the criteria between Housing and Transfer Registers to create a single Choice Based Lettings Scheme. To ensure that access to tenancies with Registered Providers is possible on a fair and needs related basis. To provide information and advice freely, openly and in an accessible and clearly understood way. To ensure that all services are delivered in accordance with the Council’s corporate policies in respect of Equality and Customer Care.
5. The Banding Structure
5.1 How Are Applications Banded?
There are four bands – A, B, C and D. These enable applicants to see the priority they have and their likely prospects of rehousing.
5.2 How do the Bands give priority for housing?
Each Band has a number of different categories which reflect housing need. Applicants in Band A are assessed as having the highest levels of housing need and have the highest priority for housing. Applicants in Band D have the lowest priority for housing and are those assessed as having no housing need at the current time or their priority has been reduced.
Priority is given within each Band to applicants living in Worthing with a local connection to Worthing. Local connection is defined in section 22 of this policy.
The Band categories give priority to applicants who are homeless or threatened with homelessness, applicants who need to move on medical grounds, those moving on from supported housing (who were living in Worthing for at least twelve months prior to moving into Supported Housing) and existing tenants of Registered Providers who have a property that no longer meets their needs (for example, tenants who are under-occupying accommodation or tenants living in a property which has adaptations that they no longer need). These priorities reflect the local situation in Worthing where emphasis is placed on prevention of homelessness and making best use of existing housing stock (including supported housing). Applicants are given priority when they are living in accommodation
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 198 that is no longer suitable for them and when their existing accommodation would meet the needs of other applicants.
Applicants in the higher Bands have the highest priority when they bid for a property. However, Choice Based Lettings encourages applicants to exercise choice over which properties they choose to bid for. Applicants in Bands A and B may bid less frequently for advertised properties either because the properties are not suitable for their needs, or because they are exercising choice. Applicants in the lower Bands will therefore be successful when bidding for properties that applicants in the higher Bands do not want.
All housing applicants are assessed and placed into one of the four bandings, A, B, C or D, depending on the urgency of their need to move. When an applicant’s situation fits into more than one banding, the application will be registered in the higher band (with the exception of applicants who are given reduced priority and placed in Band D).
5.3 The four priority Bands
The fours Bands (A, B, C and D) and the categories within each Band (‘Band reasons6’) are set out below.
Band A – Urgent/emergency (restricted to applicants who currently reside in Worthing)
A1 Homeless households owed the main housing duty by Worthing Borough Council placed in emergency temporary accommodation where the only prospect of meeting the households’ needs is in permanent accommodation (e.g. the applicant has obtained employment and is experiencing severe financial hardship, or the household has severe medical or disability needs).
A2 Homeless households owed the main housing duty by Worthing Borough Council placed in temporary accommodation where the landlord requires the property back or the property is wholly unsuitable to meet the applicant’s needs (or a member of the household’s needs) and it is not possible to adapt the accommodation to meet those needs.
A3 Successors, non-statutory successors and lawful occupiers of Registered Provider tenancies in Worthing who are approved by the Housing Services Manager (or equivalent) for an offer of smaller or more suitable alternative accommodation in agreement with the Registered Provider.
A4 Households threatened with homelessness who would be owed the main housing duty by Worthing Borough Council, where the household is making their own temporary arrangements in agreement with Housing Services, or having to live apart (having previously lived together) due to a genuine lack of accommodation that would meet their needs, and an offer of social housing would be the only way to prevent homelessness.
6 Some of the band reasons will not be applicable due to the qualification reasons that are implemented in this policy. However, they have been retained for reference purposes and to allow for cases when exceptional circumstances may be applicable. Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 199
A5 Releasing an adapted property, or to make best use of adapted stock, in Worthing, at the Council’s discretion, where the tenant does not require adaptations or where the existing property cannot be adapted to meet the applicant’s needs.
A6 High medical priority awarded where the housing conditions are having such a major adverse effect on the medical condition of the applicant, or member of the household, or there is an overriding medical need for settled accommodation in Worthing as to warrant emergency priority.
A7 Tenants of Registered Providers in Worthing under-occupying family sized accommodation and where Worthing Borough Council can nominate to the vacancy that arises.
A8 Households living in Worthing who are statutorily overcrowded (based on the Housing Act 1985 standard) and where the overcrowding has not been caused deliberately or could have been avoided.
A9 Applicants moving on from care, or leaving supported housing in Worthing, evidenced with relevant care plan, references where appropriate and plans in place to meet future care or support needs, where there is an overriding need for social housing and Worthing Borough Council will have nomination rights to the vacancy arising or where there are exceptional circumstances or need as agreed by the Housing Services Manager.
A10 Priority transfer of Registered Provider tenant in Worthing, e.g. severe ongoing harassment, exceptional circumstances due to significant and insurmountable problems associated with the tenant’s occupation, where there is imminent personal risk to the household if they remain, or where there are exceptional circumstances resulting in an urgent need to move (supporting information from other agencies is required).
A11 Severe need of households living in Worthing and needing to continue to live in Worthing – exceptional circumstances and/or multiple complex needs, which warrant emergency priority – to be agreed by the Housing Services Manager (or equivalent).
Band B – High Housing Need
B1 Households living in Worthing and lacking 2 or more separate bedrooms (see table T1 below and exception in Band reason C1), except for those living in supported housing or accommodation provided in accordance with the homelessness legislation.
B2 Former tenants of Registered Providers in Worthing, or applicants who previously had temporary accommodation in Worthing, where Worthing Borough Council has given an undertaking to accommodate. For example, where a tenancy has been relinquished following the tenant going into an institution or care setting and they are now ready for release or discharge from that institution or care. Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 200
B3 Priority transfer of a Registered Provider tenant in Worthing, agreed by the Housing Services Manager (or equivalent) and the relevant housing manager of the Registered Provider, where the tenant needs to move on social or welfare grounds.
B4 Private sector households occupying properties in Worthing which have Category 1 Hazards under the Housing Act 2004 Housing, Health & Safety Rating System (report required from Environmental Health) and where the Category 1 Hazards cannot be remedied within a reasonable period.
B5 Medium medical priority or priority on social and welfare grounds. This Band reason includes serving members of the armed forces (or bereaved spouses or civil partners of a recent serving member of the armed forces) who are leaving accommodation provided by the Ministry of Defence within the next six months and where there is a need to resettle in Worthing.
B6 High priority hardship as agreed by the Housing Services Manager (or equivalent) – housing applicants with multiple or complex needs, living in insecure accommodation in Worthing, not having a bedroom or lacking amenities, with a need for accommodation in Worthing.
B7 Applicants registered and confirmed by Worthing Borough Council as regularly sleeping rough in the Worthing Borough but not owed the main housing duty, or applicants provided with emergency accommodation on a discretionary basis, and working with a recognised agency that supports their application, and where the only prospect of meeting their housing need is by an offer of accommodation with a Registered Provider.
Band C – an Identified Housing Need
C1 Households lacking one separate bedroom (see table T1 below), or lacking two bedrooms but it would not be appropriate to give additional priority (for example, applicants who have moved into accommodation that is too small for their household).
C2 Tenants of Registered Providers in Worthing who are under-occupying accommodation but who are requesting specific accommodation that is not readily available or have been in Band A and successfully bid for and been offered three properties but refused each one or where Worthing Borough Council cannot nominate to the vacancy that arises.
C3 Homeless households placed by Worthing Borough Council in interim or temporary accommodation, including those owed the main housing duty by Worthing Borough Council, or at the discretion of the Housing Services Manager households living in private rented accommodation assisted by Worthing Borough Council to prevent homelessness.
C4 Households identified in a Care Plan where accommodation is required to assist in delivering the Care Plan or to relieve other social/welfare hardship as agreed
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 201 between Adult Social Care, Children’s Social Care (or other relevant agency, e.g. mental health services) and Housing.
C5 Low medical priority or priority on social and welfare grounds.
C6 Living in housing where support is provided, or households who have previously lived in supported housing but moved on to alternative accommodation in a planned way agreed with the support provider and the Housing Services Manager.
C7 Other unsatisfactory housing conditions (e.g. those with no fixed address, living with family or friends, lacking or sharing facilities, disrepair that cannot be easily remedied).
C8 Applicants for sheltered housing with a low medical priority and where no higher need exists.
C9 Applicants who need to move to a particular area in the Worthing Borough where failure to meet that need would cause hardship, e.g. to give or receive support.
Band D – no Housing Need or applicants given reduced priority
D1 Transfer applicants with no other housing need.
D2 Housing applicants with no other housing need.
D3 Applicants with substantial savings, capital or investments, or owner occupiers with sufficient equity in their property, who are able to obtain their own accommodation to meet their needs either in the private rented sector or by purchasing alternative accommodation. Decisions to place applicants into this Banding category are based on each applicant’s individual circumstances, taking into account other relevant needs, for example, medical needs and the type of property required.
D4 Housing applicants or transfer applicants given reduced priority in accordance with this policy (see section 6) for reasons R1 to R11 below. ______R1 Applicants that have housing related debts owed to Worthing Borough Council, another local authority or Registered Provider. These debts may have accrued from the Council’s rent in advance and deposit guarantee scheme, charges associated with the cost of Bed and Breakfast, emergency or temporary accommodation (including storage charges) or recharges in relation to current or former tenancies. Each case is assessed on an individual basis and the Council will consider any arrangements that have been made to repay any debt and whether the arrangement has been adhered to.
R2 Applicants who have deliberately worsened their own housing circumstances which would result in a greater need for a social housing allocation, and those circumstances would place them in a higher Band.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 202 R3 Applicants who have or had alternative accommodation available to them, in the UK or abroad, but they have chosen not to live in that accommodation when it would have been reasonable to continue to reside in that accommodation.
R4 Applicants guilty of serious unacceptable behaviour (set out in section 3) who are not excluded from joining the Register of Housing Need but where it would not be appropriate to give them priority over other applicants. For example, an applicant who has a history of significant rent arrears but currently has a clear rent account, or an applicant evicted from social housing due to extreme nuisance or harassment.
R5 Applicants living in supported housing or temporary accommodation (owed the main housing duty) who are not ready for move-on (confirmed by relevant agency) or who have rent arrears or have been served notice due a breach of tenancy or licence condition.
R6 Applicants living in interim or temporary accommodation arranged by another local authority or agency (not arranged by Worthing Borough Council).
R7 Applicants who have been made a direct offer and have unreasonably refused the offer of accommodation.
R8 Applicants who have successfully bid for several properties that are suitable for their needs but have unreasonably refused each property. Each case will be considered on its merits taking into account the number of properties refused and the period the properties are refused over, the type of property needed and any special circumstances of the applicant.
R9 Applicants who have moved to accommodation in Worthing that is not suitable to meet their housing needs.
R10 Applicants with a housing need but who are not currently residing in Worthing or applicants who have no local connection to Worthing.
R11 Applicants with a housing need who have been assisted to secure accommodation in Worthing by another agency, statutory service or local authority, and where they were not previously residing in Worthing.
5.4 What size properties can applicants bid for?
Table (T1) for assessing required bedroom provision for each household member (for the purpose of assessments on the Register of Housing Need). Bedroom provision is based on the severe shortage of accommodation and to ensure that best use is made of all available housing stock within the Worthing Borough:
A single independent adult (16yrs +) Bedsit/studio or 1 bedroom Co-habiting couples 1 bedroom A single dependent child or non dependent 1 bedroom adult Two dependent children or non dependent 2 bedrooms adults of the opposite sex where one child Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 203 is aged 10yrs + Two dependent children of the same sex 1 bedroom or non dependent adult siblings
Dependent children are defined as those who are ordinarily resident with the applicant, who do not appear on another person’s application or have an application in their own name (if 16 years and over), and who do not have accommodation elsewhere available to them.
Non dependent adults are defined as those who are 18 years of age and over who are ordinarily resident with the applicant and are reasonably expected to reside with the applicant, who do not appear on another person’s application or have an application in their own name and who do not have accommodation elsewhere available to them.
Dependent children and non dependent adult siblings include step brothers and sisters.
Table (T2) illustrates the maximum property size applicants can bid for based on the composition of their household (for the purpose of assessments on the Register of Housing Need):
Household composition Property size The property type can be a flat, house or bungalow Single person Studio or one bedroom property Couple One bedroom property Single person or couple with a confirmed One bedroom property (until the baby is pregnancy born)
One adult or a couple with one child or adult Two bedroom property family member One adult or a couple with two children or Two bedroom property two adult family members of the same sex One adult or a couple with two children of Two bedroom property different sexes, both children under 10 years old One adult or a couple with two children or Three bedroom property adult family members of different sexes, at least one child over 10 years old One adult or a couple with three children or Three bedroom property three adult family members One adult or a couple with four children or Three bedroom property where it has three four adult family members double size bedrooms and one child over 10 years old would not have to share with a child of the opposite sex, or
Four bedroom property One adult or a couple with more than four Four bedroom property children or more than four adult family (this could be a three bedroom house with members two living rooms where one of the living rooms could reasonably be used as a bedroom) Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 204 Some exceptions may occur to the details table T1 and T2, for example, where an additional bedroom is deemed essential on medical grounds or where a property has specific adaptations or a minimum age restriction applies.
6. Reasonable Preference
6.1 Do Certain Applicants Get Preference Over Others?
Local Authorities have to give ‘reasonable preference’ to certain types of applicant in accordance with the Housing Act 1996 (as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002)7. However, each Local Authority can exercise discretion8 to decide the priority between applicants.
Housing applicants are placed into the most appropriate band, which represents their housing need. The band indicates the ‘reasonable preference’ they are given. Their priority within the band in which they have been placed is determined by length of time in that band and local connection criteria.
Applicants are able to move from one band to another if their circumstances change and the new circumstances place them into a different band. If any change of circumstances results in a Band change, Housing Services write to inform the applicant of the new Band and their new priority date if applicable.
The principle of the scheme is that no one should overtake existing applicants in a Band. If an applicant moves into a higher Band, their priority date is the date they entered that higher Band or the date they acquired a local connection. If an applicant moves into a lower Band, their priority date reverts to the date that applied when the applicant was previously in that Band, or an earlier date they had from being in a higher Band.
The Housing Services Manager (or equivalent) may authorise a change of Band where an applicant has severe multiple needs that mean exceptional circumstances and/or multiple needs warrant emergency priority.
6.2 Reduced priority
Where applicants have a housing need which would place them in Band A, B or C, but there are circumstances that mean it would not be reasonable to give them priority over others, their priority may be reduced.
The categories of people whose priority may be reduced are set out in section 5.3 under Band reason D4.
Applicants, whose priority is reduced due to any of the reasons R1 to R11, may ask for their priority to be reviewed if:
7 Section 167(2) and 167(2A) of the Housing Act 1996 as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002 8 Section 167(6) of the Housing Act 1996 as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002 Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 205 a housing related debt has been paid in full; or there has been a material change in the applicant’s circumstances; or they have been in Band D for a minimum of twelve months (due to Band reason D4). 7. How properties are advertised
7.1 How available properties are advertised
Available properties are advertised in the following ways:
On the Homemove website for those people able to access the internet.
By contacting Housing Services either in person or by telephone.
7.2 The eligibility criteria for each property
The eligibility criteria for each property are stated in the property advert and include:
The minimum and maximum number of persons in the household. If there is an age limits or a requirement for a household without young children. The mobility group, if applicable (see definition in section 22). If applications are restricted to special cases such as a priority transfer. If pets are allowed. Whether it is sheltered housing.
The advert also specifies:
The Registered Provider which owns the property. The weekly rent, including any other charges. The tenure type of the property being advertised and whether the tenancy is being offered on a fixed term basis. The date the property is expected to be ready for occupation (in some cases).
All adapted properties are advertised with a mobility classification and, in addition, with notes where the potential for adaptation or further adaptation exists. The advert will state if the property is:
Suitable for a wheelchair user indoors and outdoors. Suitable for people who cannot manage steps or stairs and may use a wheelchair some of the time. Suitable for people who are independent but can only manage one or two steps.
If a property is advertised but there are no suitable applicants who have bid, the property may be offered as a direct let to applicants in Band A, B or C. In cases where households have been accepted as homeless under the Housing Act 1996 Part VII and have been awarded the relevant Band, a direct let will constitute a final offer to bring the Council’s duty under the homelessness legislation to an end. If there are no suitable applicants for a property with a mobility classification, the property may be used to provide temporary Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 206 accommodation to a homeless household in accordance with Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. In addition:
No applicants can bid for properties that would result in over-crowding or under- occupation. Supported housing will only be offered to people who have support needs and if the supported housing scheme would meet their support needs.
The Council aims to maximise the use of available social housing to provide as many solutions to housing need as possible. For example, a three bedroom property may be offered to an existing Registered Provider tenant where it would create a suitable vacancy to let to another household in housing need. The property advert will clearly state if priority will be given to existing Registered Provider tenants.
If an applicant or member of their household is awarded medical priority for ground floor accommodation, they would not normally be considered for any houses that become available. It is considered that a recommendation for ground floor accommodation on medical grounds means that the applicant or family member cannot manage stairs either inside or outside a property, without specific adaptations.
8. Bidding for properties
8.1 The bidding process
Applicants can bid for properties in the following ways:
Send in a completed coupon By telephone On line via the website In person at the Council offices
Full details of how to bid are set out in a Scheme User Guide, which is sent out to all new applicants.
Applicants with support needs and those who have difficulty with written English can be supported by Housing Services staff or an appropriate care or support provider.
Applicants who urgently need to move and who do not bid for properties may receive a direct allocation by the Council.
All bids for a property are checked against the eligibility rules. Ineligible bids are excluded from consideration. Applicants who regularly bid for properties they are not eligible for will be contacted and offered support.
Applicants can bid for up to three properties they are eligible for per fortnight. Once an offer has been made the applicant has the choice to refuse the property. Applicants who refuse a property they have bid for can bid again in the following bidding cycle. Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 207
9. Selection of applicants
9.1 The selection process
All eligible bids for each property are placed in priority order which is decided by:
Band, then by Local connection, then by Priority date within the Band, then by Random selection if there is a tie.
Every bid is assigned a random number when the bid is made. This number is used to resolve a tie; the highest number gets the priority.
If there are no eligible bidders for a property, a direct allocation may be made to a person with a high priority in band A, or the property may be re-advertised.
9.2 Viewings by successful bidders
The Council sends up to three prospective nominees to the Registered Provider, advising of the priority order.
To minimise delays multiple viewings can be carried out for up to three applicant households per property. Applicants are required to take proof of identity to the viewing.
The Registered Provider will offer the applicant with the highest priority the option to accept the property and invite them to sign for the tenancy or agree a decision within 24 hours.
If the applicant chooses to refuse the property, the Council will note the reasons for refusal and the Registered Provider will offer the tenancy to the person with the second highest priority.
If the second applicant refuses, the tenancy will be offered to the third applicant.
If the third applicant refuses, the Council may provide further nominees in priority order from those that have bid for the property. The reasons for refusal will be reviewed.
Applicants who have bid for properties are not penalised for refusing offers unless the applicant refuses several properties (see section 6.2, R8), or is an accepted homeless household in Band A, B or C.
Applicants who do not provide proof of identity at the viewing will be given 24 hours to provide proof to the Registered Provider or at the Council’s office prior to signing for the tenancy.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 208
If the previous tenant of a property has reported that he or she was a victim of racial or other harassment, the Registered Provider will advise a prospective tenant of this fact before they formally offer the tenancy.
10. Shortlisting of applicants
10.1 How shortlisting takes place
Offers are made to applicants who match the property type (including any priority given to specific household types) in the order they appear on the shortlist.
In some circumstances, an applicant on the shortlist for a particular property may be by-passed for the following reasons:
To ensure that wider objectives are met as set out in the next section (local lettings plans and sensitive lets).
If the property is withdrawn by the Registered Provider at short notice, for example, the existing tenant has not moved or the property is damaged and requires major works.
If the property is required to meet an applicant who has specific needs or an urgent need and the property on offer matches those needs.
If an offer to an applicant with lower priority will result in the availability of an alternative property that can be used to meet an urgent housing need of another applicant.
If the applicant has rent arrears or a housing related debt owed to the Council or another housing authority.
If the applicant is transferring from a social housing tenancy and their current social landlord anticipates significant recharges will apply due to the condition of the property or the tenant has been asked to rectify non standard work or poor decoration in the property and has failed to do so.
When the circumstances of the applicant have changed and the change is likely to result in them moving into a lower band.
If further investigation is required into the circumstances of the applicant or a member of their household, which were not apparent at the time of the application.
When an applicant cannot reasonably be contacted or is not available to take up an offer of accommodation.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 209 When an applicant has bid for a property that does not meet their housing needs (for example, they have a mobility recommendation and have bid on a property with stairs). 11. Local Lettings Plans and Sensitive Lets
The majority of available properties will be advertised and applicants will be shortlisted in priority order within their band. However, there are times when exceptions need to be made to ensure the best use of social housing, and that communities are balanced. These exceptions are set out below.
11.1 To ensure that communities are as balanced as possible
A Local Lettings Plan may be adopted for specific areas. This plan would take into account the needs of the local area and would consider any evidence of problems that need addressing. A Local Lettings Plan may be adopted when a new build development is being let for the first time to ensure a balanced community, and to ensure the area is not over or under populated from the outset. Properties subject to Local Lettings Plans would be clearly advertised and priorities given to those that meet the agreed criteria.
11.2 To ensure that allocations are sensitively made
There are occasions when particular problems may occur in relation to a property or properties within a specific area. To avoid ongoing problems or a recurrence of similar problems, an allocation may need to be made sensitively, for example, it may not be suitable to allocate a property to a particular group based on age, gender or race. Therefore, in exceptional cases, the person at the top of the shortlist may not be offered the property when a sensitive allocation is required. Some properties may be subject to maximum and minimum age restrictions and these are clearly labelled in the property advert.
11.3 To make the best use of social housing and to reduce under- occupation
From time to time a property may be advertised for those who are releasing larger social housing properties or reserved for those who need to move urgently where a social housing vacancy will arise.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 210 12. Time limits
12.1 Time Limits for Bidding on Properties
The Council may advise applicants of a time limit for bidding. This will occur where an applicant has a housing need (in Band A, B or C) and they have not bid for properties that have been suitable for them or there is a need for them to move quickly. Examples of the categories of applicants who may be given time limits for bidding are:
Statutory homeless households. Former tenants of Registered Providers that the Council has given an undertaking to house, for example, following release or discharge from an institution. Non-statutory successors. Priority transfers from existing social housing. Applicants moving on from care or supported housing. Under-occupiers who have succeeded to the tenancy when the Registered Provider has grounds for seeking possession and suitable alternative accommodation is required.
The applicant will be notified of the time limit and it will be made clear to the applicant when the time limit will start and end.
13. Properties not advertised – direct lettings
13.1 Direct Lettings
In limited circumstances the Council will allocate properties directly as set out below:
Special circumstances, e.g. an applicant referred through the National Witness Mobility Service or where the Public Protection Panel recommends that a Register of Housing Need applicant with high priority should be excluded from bidding. The Council will make one reasonable offer and if refused the applicant will be given reduced priority and moved to Band D.
Homeless households in Band A, B or C who have failed to exercise choice through the bidding process within a set timescale (see section 12) or homeless households with an urgent need to move (for example, they have to move out of their temporary accommodation through no fault of their own). The Council may make one reasonable offer of accommodation before its duty is discharged, or priority reduced and the applicant is moved to a lower Band.
Existing tenants of Registered Providers in Worthing living in a property on the first floor or above and who need to move to ground floor accommodation within the same block or area.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 211 Former tenants of Registered Providers when an undertaking to rehouse has been given by the Council, who fail to bid successfully within the timescale, may be made one reasonable offer before priority is reduced.
Non-statutory successors may be made one direct offer.
Priority Transfers cases in Band A who fail to bid successfully within a set timescale may be made one direct offer.
Applicants in Band A, B or C ready for move-on from care or supported housing who fail to bid successfully or have an urgent need to move may be made one direct offer.
Applicants who have succeeded to a tenancy but are underoccupying the property, and need suitable alternative accommodation, may be made one direct offer.
Applicants in Band A, B or C when a property has been advertised but has not attracted any suitable bids in Band A, B or C and the property would meet the needs of applicants who have failed to bid.
Applicants living in the Adur District and who qualify to be on Adur District Council’s Housing Register and where there is no suitable accommodation available to meet their needs in the Adur area but there is suitable accommodation in the Worthing area. In these circumstances a reciprocal arrangement may be agreed and approved by the Housing Services Manager (or equivalent) and the applicant may be made one direct offer.
Properties offered as a direct let will be in an applicant’s area of choice whenever possible.
14. Refusals
14.1 Refusals Following Direct Lettings
In the categories set out in section 13 of this policy, the Council will make one reasonable offer which, as far as possible, matches the size and type of property the applicant is eligible for and is not in an area known to be unsafe for the household. The applicant must give the reasons for refusing. The property will not be held empty while the refusal is reviewed but will be let to another applicant.
If the offer is to a homeless household a manager will review the case to consider whether the refusal is reasonable, and whether the offer constitutes a final offer in accordance with the homelessness legislation.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 212 14.2 Reasonable Offers and Refusals
When considering the types of property that are suitable for applicants, it is important to remember that more flats become available than houses and bungalows. Generally, single people and couples are considered for studio/one bedroom properties respectively.
Properties with 2 bedrooms are normally let to a couple or single person with one child or two children of the same sex.
Properties with 3 bedrooms are normally let to a couple or single person with three or more children.
There are very few four bedroom properties and these are almost always let to a couple or single person that has four or more children.
If an additional bedroom is required on health grounds, supporting information must be provided to enable an assessment to be carried out. A decision is made by the Housing Services Manager (or equivalent) in consultation with the Council’s Medical Adviser to decide whether an additional bedroom is essential on medical grounds.
15. Feedback
15.1 Feedback on Let Properties
All properties let are listed in a future copy of the electronic Homemove magazine (available on the Sussex Homemove website) showing the number of bidders for each property and the Band and priority date of the successful applicant.
16. Homelessness
If an applicant has been accepted as homeless by the Council and in particular, if the applicant is living in temporary accommodation arranged by the Council, they cannot wait indefinitely to bid for properties. This is because the property that they have been placed in will be needed for another homeless household. When an applicant is accepted as homeless they are told that the Council will cease to be under a duty to assist them if they refuse an offer of reasonable and suitable accommodation. Applicants in this section may be given a time limit in which to bid and if an applicant does not choose a property within the time specified, a direct letting will be made.
Once a homeless applicant is made an offer of accommodation, if refused, Worthing Borough Council no longer has a duty to accommodate the applicant in temporary accommodation or offer alternative permanent accommodation. If the applicant does not consider the accommodation suitable, they may ask for a review of the decision even though they may have accepted the offer. If, however, the applicant
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 213 does not accept the offer and the review is unsuccessful, the Council will not be able to provide any further assistance with accommodation.
17. Other Housing Solutions
17.1 Alternatives to rented accommodation with a Registered Provider
Applicants who are seeking alternatives to traditional rented accommodation with a Registered Provider, e.g. low cost home ownership, sheltered housing with extra care schemes or relocation, should make this clear on the application form. Applicants’ details are shared with other providers that may work in partnership with the Council to provide other types of accommodation.
17.2 Private Sector Housing Options
The Council provides advice and assistance to applicants seeking alternative accommodation in the private rented sector.
Discretionary assistance may be in the form of a loan for rent in advance or a deposit or deposit guarantee, or matching with a suitable private landlord. Priority for discretionary assistance may be given to people moving on from supported housing when this will release a vacancy in a supported housing project that is needed for another person nominated by the Council.
17.3 Help for Home Owners
The Council provides advice and assistance to homeowners who may be at risk of losing their homes due to repossession or other financial problems.
There are a number of options that can assist home owners. These range from negotiation with lenders and exploring the lenders hardship tools to assistance under a Mortgage Rescue Scheme if applicable and if available. It is not always possible to prevent someone’s home from being repossessed but it is important for applicants to seek advice at an early stage so the maximum options are available to them.
17.4 Supported Housing Schemes
Applicants can apply to be considered for particular supported housing schemes that would meet their needs. These schemes are usually for specific groups of people, such as supported housing for young people, or housing for older people. Some housing that has support linked to the accommodation, such as sheltered housing, is advertised in accordance with this policy. Other housing where the criteria are more specific, such as extra care housing, is not advertised under the Choice Based Lettings scheme. There are
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 214 alternative arrangements in place in Worthing to allocate supported housing which is not let under the Choice Based Lettings Scheme.
18. Registered Provider partners and policies
18.1 Registered Providers in Worthing
The following Registered Providers (RPs) operate in Worthing:
Ability Housing Association Affinity Sutton Guinness Trust Hanover Housing Association Home Group Housing 21 Hyde Martlet Places for People Raglan Housing Association Rosemary Simmons Sanctuary Housing Southdown Housing Southern Housing Group Viridian Worthing Homes Limited
18.2 Registered Providers’ policies
Registered Providers may have individual policies which prevent them making an offer of a tenancy even when an applicant has successfully bid for a property.
Common policies, which exclude people from being offered a tenancy, are:
Applicants under 18 years, unless they have a guarantor;
Applicants with outstanding rent arrears in their current accommodation or with a housing related debt owed to them or another Registered Provider or local housing authority;
Applicants who have demonstrated anti social behaviour;
Applicants who have previously held a tenancy with a local authority or Registered Provider and been evicted from that tenancy or voluntarily left it;
Applicants who have a tenancy (either solely or jointly) with another Registered Provider and the applicant does not live there or the joint tenant is remaining in the property;
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 215 Applicants who own a property (either solely or jointly), or have an interest in a property;
Applicants with substantial savings, investments or other assets;
Applicants with significant levels of debt and the Registered Provider has assessed them as not being able to meet their rental liability;
Applicants with high support needs who are assessed by the Registered Provider as not being able to manage a tenancy.
When a Registered Provider (RP) does not make an offer of a tenancy to an applicant who has successfully bid for a property, the RP will provide the applicant with full details of the reason for refusal. Any right of review or appeal regarding the refusal by the RP is dealt with by the RP in accordance with their policies and procedures. There is no right of review or appeal to the Council as the decision to refuse the applicant is not a decision of the Council.
19. Other information and review
19.1 Rights to Information and Review
Applicants have the right to request general information to enable them to assess how their application is likely to be treated, for example, whether housing accommodation appropriate to their needs is likely to be made available. This information includes whether an applicant is likely to be regarded as a member of a group which has been awarded reasonable preference.
The Register of Housing Need and Choice Based Lettings Scheme give applicants the following rights about decisions which are taken in respect of their applications:
The right to be notified in writing of any decision to: a) exclude an applicant from the Register of Housing Need (see section 3) b) give reduced priority (see section 6) c) make a direct offer (see section 13)
An applicant has the right to request a review of any decision made in accordance with a), b) or c) above.
A request for a review must be made within 21 days of the date of the letter which notifies the applicant of the Council’s decision. The Council has discretion to extend the time limit if it considers this is reasonable.
A review request must be submitted in writing. If a person has difficulty writing Housing Services staff will complete a written request on behalf of the applicant which the applicant must then sign.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 216 The review will be carried out by a Manager within the Housing Services team or other officer at an equivalent or higher level within the Authority. Further enquiries may be necessary and the Manager carrying out the review may ask an officer at a lower level to carry out these enquiries.
The applicant will be advised of the review decision and the reasons for the decision, in writing, within eight weeks of receiving the review request. This time limit may be extended by mutual agreement if further enquiries need to be made before a decision can be given.
The decision made on review is the final decision of the Council. There is no further right of review and no right to appeal against the decision on review.
If there is a change in the applicant’s circumstances following the review decision, the applicant may submit a fresh application for consideration in accordance with sections 3, 6 and 13 of this policy.
20. Data Protection and False Information
20.1 Data Protection
Details of those applying for housing are processed and held on a computer and in a filing system. All applicants are asked to sign a declaration, which acknowledges that their data is processed in accordance with data protection legislation. In addition, applicants must provide consent to allow their details to be verified and shared with other statutory bodies and other agencies working in partnership with the Council.
20.2 False Information
Section 171 of the Housing Act 1996 (as amended) makes it an offence to withhold information that is reasonably required to assess an application or to provide false or misleading information to obtain a tenancy.
Appropriate action will be taken against anyone who obtains a social housing tenancy by knowingly providing false information. This action can result in a fine and / or the termination of the tenancy that has been granted as a result of the false information given.
21. Consultation and Equality Impact Assessment
21.1 Consultation regarding changes in relation to qualification criteria
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 217 Consultation was carried out prior to the Council adopting Choice Based Lettings. Further consultation was carried out between November 2013 and January 2014 prior to the implementation of this revised policy.
The responses to the consultation carried out in relation to the qualification criteria is summarized below: a) 71.8% agreed that people who do not have a local connection should be excluded from the Housing Register. b) 77.4% agreed that people should be living in Worthing before being allowed to join the Housing Register. c) 76.6% agreed that if people are not residing in Worthing but are working in Worthing, they need to work for 6 months in Worthing before being allowed to join the Housing Register. d) 64.3% agreed that existing tenants of Registered Providers in Worthing should only be allowed to join the Housing Register if they need to move to smaller or larger accommodation or need to move due to medical reasons. e) 56.9% agreed that existing tenants of Councils or Registered Providers not living in Worthing or Adur should not be allowed to join the Housing Register. f) 90.3% agreed that households with an income of £60,000 per annum or more should not be allowed to join the Housing Register.
A clear majority of respondents to the consultation agreed with the qualification criteria. The lowest majority was in relation to whether existing tenants of Councils or Registered Providers who do not live in Adur or Worthing should be allowed to join the Housing Register. The qualification criteria in relation to existing tenants provides for exceptions (see 3.3.3.j) so that those with an overriding need to live in Worthing are able to join the Housing Register.
21.2 Equality Impact Assessment
An Initial Equality Impact Assessment was carried out prior to the implementation of this Policy. In addition, an Equality Impact Assessment was carried out by Brighton and Hove City Council on behalf of the Sussex Homemove Partnership.
The impact of this policy is not significant on one group compared to another group so no adverse impact is identified.
The implementation of specific qualification criteria has no impact on one group compared to another and no adverse impact is identified to any particular group. Therefore, a full Equality Impact Assessment is not necessary in relation to implementing qualification criteria as set out in this policy.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 218
22. Terms and Definitions
22.1 The terms referred to in this policy are defined below
Term Definition
Anti-Social Behaviour Any intimidating or threatening activity that scares you or damages your quality of life. Examples include rowdy/noisy behaviour, vandalism, graffiti, fly-tipping, aggressive begging and street drinking.
Applicant(s) A person applying to join or who is already on the Register of Housing Need. Within Sussex Homemove, applicants are divided into two categories; Transfers (existing social housing tenants living in Worthing) and Homeseekers (all other applicants who are not transfers).
Band Each Band has a number of categories which reflect housing need. The band is used to prioritise applicants according to their level of housing need.
Bidding / Bid Expressing an interest in an available property.
Successful bid A successful bid is a bid placed by an applicant, which results in the applicant being invited to view that property.
Choice Based Lettings The allocation and lettings of properties that enables applicants to have choice or express a preference in relation to the accommodation they want.
Direct Lets A property offered directly to an applicant. The property may not have been advertised.
Homeless households Applicants who have been assessed by the Council as homeless in accordance with Section 175 of the Housing Act 1996 (as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002).
Homeowner A person who owns a property, either on their own or with other persons.
Housing Related Debt A sum of money owed to the Council or a Registered Provider related to housing, for example, rent arrears, contributions to service charges, Housing Benefit overpayment, removal expenses, loans for rent in advance or a deposit, payments made following a deposit Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 219 Term Definition
guarantee claim.
Local Connection Applicants who are ordinarily resident in Worthing for either: 6 months out of the last 12 months 3 years out of the last 5 years
Ordinary residence means residence secured by the applicant which is their usual place of residence or their own choice. Residence must be proven by the applicant and verified by Worthing Borough Council.
Ordinary residence for the purpose of the Register of Housing Need and Choice Based Lettings Policy excludes the following: Hospital, Respite Care, Residential Placements or Residential Care, accommodation provided under the Mental Health Act 1983, any other institution, any other medical setting, accommodation provided by a Care provider, Supported Housing (unless the applicant was resident in Worthing for a continuous period of twelve months immediately prior to the commencement of the care or supported housing provision).
In addition, an applicant residing in Worthing but owed a statutory housing duty by another Local Authority (Districts, Boroughs and County Councils), or placed in accommodation in Worthing pending a decision by another local authority does not have a local connection for the purposes of this Policy.
Local Connection includes applicants who have a family member (mother, father, brother, sister or adult children) currently residing in Worthing and have done so for at least the last five continuous years (the residence and family connection must be proven by the applicant and verified by Worthing Borough Council).
Local Connection includes applicants who have established employment based in Worthing (established employment is permanent in nature and likely to continue on an ongoing basis). Employment must be proven by the applicant and verified by Worthing Borough Council.
Local Connection is lost in the following situations: when an applicant who was previously living in Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 220 Term Definition
Worthing moves out of the Borough; or when an applicant has a local connection by virtue of their employment in the Worthing Borough and that employment ceases; or when an applicant has a local connection by virtue of a family member living in the Worthing Borough and that family member ceases to live in the Borough.
Local Lettings Plan A plan to allocate particular properties to people of a particular description, whether or not they fall into the reasonable preference categories.
Medical Priority Medical priority is given when an applicant or a member of their household has an illness or disability that is affected by their current housing situation or when they are in need of settled accommodation on physical or mental health grounds or due to overriding social and welfare (including financial hardship) circumstances. There are three categories of medical priority:
High – the applicant or a member of their household has a serious (including life threatening) medical condition and their current housing is having a major adverse affect on the medical condition, which warrants emergency priority for housing being given.
Medium – the current housing conditions are having a major adverse affect on the medical condition of the applicant or a member of their household.
Low – the current housing conditions are having an adverse affect on the medical condition of the applicant or a member of their household which creates a particular need for them to move.
Mobility Levels / Codes Codes to identify the suitability of properties that are advertised for people with mobility problems.
Mobility Level 1 – suitable for someone who needs a wheelchair indoors and outdoors.
Mobility Level 2 – suitable for someone who may need a wheelchair outdoors but does not need to use a wheelchair indoors.
Mobility Level 3 – suitable for someone with restricted mobility who may not be able to manage steep gradients or several steps. Priority Date The date given when an applicant enters a Band or when Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 221 Term Definition
a local connection is acquired. The priority date (along with local connection) determines an applicant’s priority over other applicants within the same Band. Private Sector Housing Housing owned by private individuals or companies that you rent or own.
Reasonable Preference Certain categories of people set out in Section 167 of the Housing Act 1996, who must be given reasonable preference when determining priority for housing.
Register of Housing Need A register holding details of applicants who are eligible for social housing, prioritised according to housing need.
Registered Provider Government regulated not-for-profit organisations that (previously referred to as provide affordable housing. These include Housing Registered Providers) Associations, Trusts and Co-operatives. Registered Providers work with local authorities to provide homes for people on the Register of Housing Need. They develop land, build homes and manage accommodation including maintaining properties and collecting rent.
Re-registration The requirement for existing applicants to confirm that they still wish to remain on the Register of Housing Need. Applicants who do not re-register have their applications cancelled but can reapply in the future.
Sensitive Allocations Allocations which need to be made to people of a particular description to balance the community, or where there have been problems in the surrounding area. For example, a property advert may specify that priority will be given to applicants over a certain age.
Social Housing Housing provided by Registered Providers or Local Authorities.
Supported Housing A project or scheme that provides accommodation and housing related support for people who need some help with housing matters, such as budgeting, form filling and understanding tenancy conditions.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 8 6 February 2014 222 Joint Strategic Committee 6 February 2014 Agenda Item 9
Ward: Worthing - All
Worthing Developer Contributions - Draft Charging Schedule for Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) - Draft Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)
Report by the Executive Head of Planning, Regeneration and Wellbeing
1.0 Summary
1.1 When in place, the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) will act as a transparent means of securing money to fund the infrastructure required to support growth. This will be achieved through a standard charge levied on new developments according to their size and type.
1.2 Evidence has been prepared to enable the Council to propose a levy rate that strikes the ‘appropriate balance’ between the desirability of funding the total cost of infrastructure required to support development and the potential effects (taken as a whole) of the imposition of CIL on the economic viability of development. This evidence informed the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule (PDCS) that was published for consultation in early 2013. Further testing has since been undertaken following consideration of the comments received on the PDCS and in response to revisions that have been made to the underlying legislation.
1.3 Following consideration by Worthing Planning Committee (December 2013) members of Joint Strategic Committee are now asked to consider the Draft Charging Schedule (Appendix A) and approve it for a 6 week period of public consultation. The report also summarises the Draft Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (Appendix B) which helps to explain the approach that the Council will take when CIL is on place. The intention is that this will be published for consultation alongside the Draft Charging Schedule.
1.4 Although this report relates to the Worthing CIL it should be noted that the same principles will apply when the Adur CIL is advanced alongside the Adur Local Plan.
2.0 Background
2.1 The Government has decided that a tariff-based approach provides the best framework to fund new infrastructure from development. The money collected through the levy can be used to fund a wide range of local and sub-regional infrastructure that is needed as a result of new development.
2.2 Although the use of the levy is at the discretion of local authorities, the reality is that changes in legislation mean that in most cases it will no longer be an option but a necessity. From April 2015, the CIL Regulations will severely limit the ability of
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 9 6 February 2014 223 Planning Obligations (Section 106 Agreements) to fund general infrastructure projects. It is therefore important a levy is in place before then so that vital funding for infrastructure projects is not lost.
2.3 In setting the rates, legislation requires the Council to strike an appropriate balance between the desirability of funding infrastructure to support development and the potential effects of imposing a charge on the economic viability of development as a whole. To demonstrate this balance the Council’s evidence must seek to:
i) Ensure that there is an infrastructure deficit
ii) Demonstrate that there is an infrastructure funding deficit to meet the need identified in i) once all alternative funding sources have been identified.
iii) Undertake a viability appraisal of the area through the use of the 'development equation' which calculates viability by subtracting development costs from development value.
2.4 The Council appointed the ‘Nationwide CIL Service’ (NCS) to undertake an economic viability assessment of potential housing and commercial developments in the Borough and to then set out the maximum and recommended rates of CIL in Worthing for each category of development. The key stages undertaken in the study included: an infrastructure evidence review; valuation survey; cost survey and; the viability testing of options. This work has helped to inform the level of tariff set in the Draft Charging Schedule.
3.0 Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule - Consultation
3.1 Following consideration of the evidence gathered, the Council was able to publish its Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule (PDCS) in early 2013. The PDCS set out initial rates for industrial, retail and industrial uses which would be applied across the Borough.
3.2 A total of 13 representations were received by the Council during the consultation. The level of detail set out in each response varied significantly and covered a range of issues which were then reported to the LDF Working Group. All comments were then considered during a further round of testing and the preparation of the Draft Charging Schedule. The key issues addressed within the Revised Viability Assessment (October 2013) are set out below. All comments made during the PDCS consultation, and the officer response to these, are available to view on the Council's website.
4.0 Revised Viability Assessment
4.1 The original Viability Assessment for CIL (Aug 2012) published by the Council's consultants was updated (Oct 2013) to take account of comments made during the previous consultation and significant changes that have been made to CIL guidance and legislation. The updated Assessment is available to view on the Council's website.
4.2 New CIL guidance published in 2013 placed a greater emphasis on local authorities being able to demonstrate deliverability of infrastructure through CIL and Planning
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 9 6 February 2014 224 Obligations. Historical evidence was used to build in a more informed allowance for Planning Obligations within the CIL appraisals. In addition, a key role of the Draft Developer Contributions SPD is to explain the relationship between CIL and Planning Obligations and the Council's overall approach when CIL is in place.
Commercial Development
4.3 The PDCS proposed a levy of £30 sqm for new industrial development (B1b, B1c, B2 and B8 uses). This figure was challenged by a respondent during the consultation. Partly in response to this and other changes in guidance the viability appraisals for industrial uses were reviewed. The updated assessment has concluded that most new industrial development (which is likely to emerge on brownfield sites) has negative viability. Therefore, it is now not proposed to levy any CIL on industrial uses. Given the relatively few opportunities for new Industrial development, this change has only a minimal impact on the level of potential CIL receipts previously projected.
Apartments
4.4 One respondent, a local house builder, made some detailed and well considered points in relation to the viability of CIL for high rise apartment development in the Borough. The representation contended that the majority of development proposed (particularly apartment development) would not occur as the evidence demonstrates that most development was unable to support CIL. As such, it was suggested that the Council should review the rate for brownfield development and set differential rates to suit the type of development and location.
4.5 Additional research was undertaken in response to these well-reasoned concerns over the viability of apartment development in Worthing. This work revealed some assumptions that had been made in the initial study were not locally specific. Some adjustments were therefore made to correct these and better reflect the type and nature of development likely to come forward in the Borough. This included consideration of premium values that can be achieved for apartments with a sea view. The revised appraisal demonstrated that in medium and high value areas apartments could accommodate significant levels of CIL.
4.6 However, it is acknowledged that some development (including some apartment development) in the low value areas demonstrated negative viability. Overall though, the development strategy in Worthing envisages that 75-80% of all new residential development is likely to be within medium and high value sub-market areas. Therefore, CIL rates which could potentially threaten the viability of some development in the lower value sub-market areas are considered unlikely to threaten the delivery of residential development as a whole over the plan period (which is a key test at Examination). Where, in exceptional circumstances, a developer is able to demonstrate that the viability of an individual scheme is in question (possibly in lower value areas) the Council may consider the appropriate level of contributions to be applied through Planning Obligations. This flexibility will help to ensure that key development schemes are not stalled whilst at the same time collecting CIL (which is non-negotiable) to help fund the delivery of infrastructure essential to support growth.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 9 6 February 2014 225 4.7 There is therefore considered to be no reason to differentiate different types of residential development that the levy will apply. As explained below, the Council continues to propose one single rate for residential uses across the Borough which is in line with CIL guidance which encourages simplicity.
Sheltered Housing
4.8 Two respondents to the PDCS suggested that accommodation for older people should be differentiated from general housing when CIL is applied. It was argued that there were additional costs for sheltered schemes that would warrant a bespoke (lower) rate for sheltered housing and specialist accommodation.
4.9 It shouId be noted that specialist extra care housing (C2) was already shown to be unviable for CIL and therefore a zero rated charge was applied for that use. However, in response to the comments made, additional appraisals on sheltered schemes were undertaken. These tests built in an allowance for additional costs associated with the development of this form of housing. However, when evidence of sales values was also applied the appraisals demonstrated that sheltered housing in Worthing is actually more viable than general housing. Therefore there is no reason to consider a separate CIL category for specialist elderly housing.
5.0 Draft Charging Schedule
5.1 Informed by the updated Viability Assessment the Council was able to prepare the Draft Charging Schedule for consideration. This is attached as Appendix A.
5.2 Taking account of the 'area based overview approach' recommended by CIL Guidance 2013 and the difficulties in justifying varying charging zone boundaries in a constrained urban area, it is considered that a single residential rate is still appropriate for Worthing. The proposed rate (£100m²) is a level that reflects the overall viability across the identified sub-markets and the type and nature of housing proposed within the Borough. For a typical development (a 3 bed house) the assessment illustrates the CIL rate proposed represents approximately 3.9% of the total development cost.
5.3 With regards to retail uses the differential between food supermarket and general retail viability is not shown to be significant and therefore a single CIL rate of £150m² for all forms of retail development is recommended.
5.4 Informed by the viability assessments, it is recommended that all other categories of development (industrial, office, leisure, community, education etc) be zero rated.
Recommended Rates
Use Proposed Levy (£/m2) Residential (C3) £100 Retail (A1-A5) £150 All other uses Zero 5.5 Based on the above rates it is estimated that, based on development projections in each chargeable category, approximately £16.9m could be raised over the plan period to 2026. This figure does not exceed the currently identified Infrastructure Funding Gap (£83m) and it is therefore considered that the proposed CIL rates Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 9 6 February 2014 226 strike the appropriate balance between funding infrastructure and maintaining the economic viability of development.
Discretionary Matters
5.6 CIL regulations allow for some matters to be determined by the Council. The Draft Charging Schedule sets out the Council's intentions on these issues. In summary, whilst at this stage the Council does not intend to adopt an Exceptional Circumstances policy it is proposed that the Council:
adopts an instalment policy to provide greater flexibility allows payment 'in-kind' in satisfaction of the whole or part of the CIL due in respect of a chargeable development applies up to 5% of CIL funds to administrative expenses
First Draft Regulation 123 List
5.7 Regulation 123 of the CIL Regulations restricts the use of Planning Obligations for infrastructure that will be funded in whole, or in part, by CIL. To ensure there is no duplication between CIL and Planning Obligations in funding the same infrastructure the projects that the Council chooses to include on the Regulation 123 list for CIL cannot also be secured through Planning Obligations.
5.8 There is no requirement for the Council to publish the draft Regulation 123 list at this stage of the process. However, it is considered beneficial to publish an early draft within the Draft Charging Schedule so that any comments received during the consultation can help to inform the later drafting of the Regulation 123 list prior to Examination and then implementation. This, alongside the draft Planning Contributions SPD (also published for consultation), will help to clarify the Council’s intended future approach for managing developer contributions.
5.9 It should be noted that inclusion of a project in this draft list now does not signify a commitment from the Council to include any individual project in the final list or fund the entirety of any one project through CIL.
6.0 Draft Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)
6.1 On adoption of CIL the regulations restrict the use of Planning Obligations (Section 106 Agreements) to ensure that individual developments are not charged twice for the same infrastructure items. Although CIL will be the dominant means for securing financial contributions from development in Worthing, Planning Obligations, (despite being 'scaled back') will continue to play a key role in relation to affordable housing and certain site specific requirements.
6.2 Further information on both CIL and Planning Obligations and an explanation of the relationship between them is explained within the Draft Developer Contributions SPD which is attached to this report as Appendix B. This document, which also provides much greater detail on the Council's affordable housing requirements, will be published for consultation alongside the Draft Charging Schedule. It will provide interested parties with clarity as to what the Council's approach to developer contributions will be when CIL is in place.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 9 6 February 2014 227 7.0 Consideration at Worthing Planning Committee and Next Steps
7.1 The Draft Charging Schedule and Draft Developer Contributions SPD were considered by Worthing Planning Committee in December 2013. The Committee noted the progress that had been made and felt that it was a positive report which they welcomed. Since that meeting some very minor revisions have been made to both documents to reflect the amendments to CIL regulations that came into force in early 2014.
7.2 If approved for consultation by JSC, both documents will be published for a 6 week consultation period commencing in February. Consultation will be undertaken in line with the Council’s Statement of Community involvement.
7.3 The Draft Charging Schedule and any comments submitted on it will then be submitted to an independent examiner. It is anticipated that the Examination in Public (EIP) would follow in the summer of 2014. Following the EIP, the Examiner will either approve, modify or reject the Draft Charging Schedule, or make non- binding recommendations in relation to it. Assuming that it has not been rejected, the Charging Schedule must then be formally approved by Council at which time the Draft Developer Contributions SPD will also be adopted. Following a transitional period it is expected that the Council will be in a position to collect CIL in Worthing from early 2015.
7.3 When CIL is in place guidance encourages authorities to keep their charging schedules under review to ensure that charges remain appropriate over time as market conditions change, and also so that they remain relevant to the gap in funding for the infrastructure needed. It is currently suggested that local authorities will want to review their charging schedules every two or three years.
8.0 Legal
8.1 The Planning Act 2008 provides powers for local authorities to apply a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to development proposals to support infrastructure delivery in an area. This came into effect with the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended). The Department for Communities and Local Government CIL Guidance (April 2013) is statutory guidance that the authority must have regard to.
8.2 A fundamental effect of the legislation is that when CIL is implemented or April 2015 (whichever is the earlier) Planning Obligations, secured through Section 106 Agreements or Unilateral Undertakings, cannot be used where there have been five or more Planning Obligations in relation to the same infrastructure or type of infrastructure, entered into on and since 6 April 2010. Agreements and Unilateral Undertakings pursuant to Section 106 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 may still be utilised however to secure Planning Obligations not covered by CIL, such as Affordable Housing.
9.0 Financial implications
9.1 There will be a cost for each Council in setting up and adopting CIL. This will largely relate to staff time and the commissioning of consultancy advice to assess viability. However, it should be noted that once the levy is in place the regulations permit up to 5% of the revenue arising from the levy to be used on admin expenses.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 9 6 February 2014 228
9.2 The formal process leading to adoption of the levy involves consideration, by an independent examiner, by way of an Examination. Although there will be costs related to this it should be noted that these will be considerably less than for other documents (such as Local Plans) as they will be much shorter in duration.
9.3 Initial costs related to this work (consultancy costs / Examination etc) have been budgeted for within the Worthing Planning Policy budget. Once CIL is adopted (alongside new guidance on Planning Obligations) it is expected that the total funding for infrastructure projects will increase as more developments contribute than those currently liable to pay under the current system.
10.0 Recommendation
10.1 It is recommended that the Joint Strategic Committee comments on the Draft Charging Schedule and Draft Developer Contributions SPD and, subject to any suggested changes, approves both documents for public consultation.
Local Government Act 1972 Background Papers:
Appendix A - Draft Charging Schedule for CIL Appendix B - Draft Developer Contributions SPD
Report to Joint Strategic Committee – 27th June 2011 Report to Joint Planning Committee – 25th September 2012 Report to Joint Strategic Committee – 25th October 2012 Report to Worthing Planning Committee - 19th November 2012 Report to Joint Strategic Committee - 24th January 2013 Report to Worthing Planning Committee – 18 December 2013 Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule - January 2013 Worthing Infrastructure Delivery Plan – September 2010 Worthing Core Strategy – April 2011 CIL Viability Assessment – August 2012 and October 2013 (including: Valuation Study / Construction Cost Study / Infrastructure Funding Gap Review)
(The Viability Assessment and its ancillary documents listed above are available to view on the Council’s website, in the Member’s Room or at Planning Reception)
Contact Officer:
Ian Moody (Principal Planning Officer) 01273 263009 [email protected]
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 9 6 February 2014 229 Schedule of Other Matters
1.0 Council Priority
1.1 The efficient collection and distribution of money collected through CIL will help to ensure that infrastructure is delivered alongside development to meet the identified needs of new and existing residents / businesses. This will help to contribute towards meeting many of the Council priorities.
2.0 Specific Action Plans
2.1 Matter considered and no issues identified.
3.0 Sustainability Issues
3.1 CIL will be collected from developments that are brought forward in line with the Core Strategy and any subsequent review. The Core Strategy, which has been the subject of a formal Sustainability Appraisal, will play a fundamental role in the delivery of sustainable development.
4.0 Equality Issues
4.1 Issues relating to race, disability, gender and other equality have been considered and it is not felt that CIL will have an adverse impact on any social group. In reality, by making communities more sustainable, CIL will facilitate economic growth and help to deliver improved services. The infrastructure and services that CIL can provide (such as community facilities and transport networks) could enhance liveability for all sectors of society, and could help to deliver new infrastructure that serves different needs within the community.
5.0 Community Safety issues (Section 17)
5.1 Matter considered and no issues identified.
6.0 Human Rights Issues
6.1 Matter considered and no issues identified.
7.0 Reputation
7.1 The ‘early’ adoption of a CIL for Worthing, when compared to the majority of local authorities in the surrounding area, will help to enhance the Council’s reputation.
8.0 Consultations
8.1 The Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule (PDCS) has been, and the Draft Charging Schedule will be, the subject of comprehensive consultation with key stakeholders and all interested parties. Representations received on the PDCS helped to inform changes that have made to the schedule and comments made on the DCS will be considered at the subsequent Examination. Consultation stages are undertaken in line with the Joint Adur & Worthing Statement of Community Involvement.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 9 6 February 2014 230 9.0 Risk assessment
9.1 If CIL is not adopted by April 2015 then legislation will restrict the use of Planning Obligations which will effectively reduce the amount and type of money obligations that can be collected from development in Worthing.
9.2 After an Examination in Public the Inspector could reject the Council’s Charging Schedule which is likely to result in a loss of infrastructure funds, damage to reputation and additional expense. This risk will be mitigated through joint working, the use of best practice and careful scrutiny of the legislation.
10.0 Health & Safety Issues
10.1 Matter considered and no issues identified.
11.0 Procurement Strategy
11.1 Specialist viability advice was sought to help undertake a Viability Assessment and in commissioning the consultants the appropriate procurement procedures were followed. These procedures may also be relevant to the appointment of an Inspector for the Examination in Public as this appointment is now made by the respective local authority rather than through the Planning Inspectorate.
12.0 Partnership working
12.1 Although there will be variation in the timetables for the progression of the Worthing and Adur Charging Schedules every effort will be made to ensure that, where possible, the documents are aligned and that they are progressed in an efficient and expedient manner through joint working. Efficiency and financial savings have been through the appointment of the same consultants to undertake the viability assessments.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 9 6 February 2014 231 APPENDIX A
Worthing Borough Council
Community Infrastructure Levy Draft Charging Schedule
January 2014
DRAFT FOR CONSIDERATION AT JOINT STRATEGIC COMMITTEE
6th February 2014
232 Consultation Overview
This consultation on the Draft Charging Schedule is a key stage in preparing a CIL Charging Schedule. Following the consultation period, the Draft Charging Schedule, together with the representations received, will be submitted to the Secretary of State prior to an Examination being held.
Comments on the Draft Charging Schedule should be addressed to:
CIL Draft Charging Schedule Planning Policy Worthing Borough Council, Portland House, 44 Richmond Road, Worthing, BN11 1HS
Or by emailing: [email protected]
For any queries, please call 01273 263009
This document is published for a six week consultation period starting on XX February until April XX (to be confirmed when approved for consultation).
Representations on the Draft Charging Schedule will be made available to the person appointed to examine the soundness of the document during an independent examination. Persons making representations may request the right to be heard by the examiner.
Please note that comments received cannot be treated as confidential as all comments must be publicly available in accordance with government regulations. Please be aware that Worthing Borough Council and Adur District Council work in partnership and information may be shared across the two organisations.
Next Steps (indicative timetable)
Draft Charging Schedule consultation ends April 2014 Submission of Draft Charging Schedule June 2014 Examination of Draft Charging Schedule Summer 2014 Adoption of Draft Charging Schedule Autumn 2014 Implementation of CIL Early 2015
1
233 Contents
Executive Summary Table 3
Introduction 4
What is CIL? 4
Charging area 5
How the proposed CIL rates have been calculated 5
Justification for introducing CIL 5
The levy rates proposed 5
Scope of CIL 6
Exemptions from CIL 6
Discretionary matters 7
First draft Regulation 123 list 7
Appendix 1 – Charging Area 8
Appendix 2 – Draft Instalment Policy 9
Appendix 3 – First Draft Regulation 123 list 10
2
234 Executive Summary Table
Charging Worthing Borough Council Authority The development of the Draft Charging Schedule has been informed by a number of documents (viewed using the link below) including:
Viability Assessment (NCS) - December 2012 and October 2013 Contains a series of appraisals that have been undertaken to test the viability of different types of development.
Land Value Appraisal Report (HEB Surveyors) – August 2012 & Nov 2013 Evidence Identifies typical land values for geographical locations within the Borough as Base well as sales values. It also identifies potential charging zones.
Construction Cost Study (Gleeds) - May 2012 Provides an estimate of construction costs over a range of development categories, to support the CIL Viability Appraisal.
Infrastructure Funding Gap Review (WYG) – May 2013 Reviews background evidence documents and identifies infrastructure schemes that are potentially eligible for CIL funding.
The Council’s Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule was published for Previous consultation in January 2013. Comments received and officer’s responses consultation to these are available to view using the link below. Consultation was stage undertaken in accordance with CIL Regulation 15.
CIL will be charged in pounds sterling (£) per square metre at differential rates according to the type of development: Rates (£m2) at which CIL Residential - £100 m² (Use class C3) is to be Retail - £150 m² (Use Class A1-A5) Chargeable All other uses will be ‘zero rated’.
The charging area to which CIL will be applied covers all areas of the Charging Borough apart from land that is designated as being within the South Downs Zones National Park – as identified on Appendix 1 of this Schedule.
How will the The Borough Council will calculate the amount of CIL chargeable to a Charge be qualifying development utilising the formula set out the CIL Regulations. Calculated? Prior to implementation of CIL the Council will publish a ‘CIL Process Guide’.
Further information relating to CIL and copies of the evidence base are available to view at Portland House and on the Council’s website:
http://www.adur-worthing.gov.uk/planning-policy/infrastructure/#worthing-cil Further Information Alternatively please contact: Ian Moody 01273 263009 [email protected]
3
235 Introduction
This consultation document sets out the Council’s approach to setting a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charge and the levy rates proposed. The publication of this document for consultation represents a key stage in the progression of CIL towards adoption. Following the consultation period, the Draft Charging Schedule, together with the representations received, will be submitted to the Secretary of State prior to an Examination being held.
The Draft Charging Schedule has been prepared in accordance with Part 11 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended).
What is CIL?
CIL is a new tariff which will allow funds to be raised from new building projects in Worthing. The money raised must be used to help fund a wide range of infrastructure to support development across the Council’s area. CIL is intended to supplement rather than replace other funding streams. The levy is a fixed, non-negotiable charge relative to the size and type of the chargeable development (although there are some exemptions available which are discussed below). As such, it is expected that the levy will give developers more certainty over costs and give councils and communities greater choice and flexibility in how infrastructure is funded.
In order to charge a levy the Borough Council, as Charging Authority, must set the rates and any other criteria in a Charging Schedule. When setting the rates, the Council must show that there is an appropriate balance between the desirability of funding the total cost of infrastructure required to support development and the potential effects (taken as a whole) of the imposition of CIL on the economic viability of development. In striking what appears to be an appropriate balance, the Charging Schedule should be informed by clear evidence.
When adopted, CIL will be the principle mechanism for collecting infrastructure contributions from new development in the Borough. Despite this, there will still be a role to play for Planning Obligations (S106 agreements / unilateral undertakings) for affordable housing and for the provision of site specific infrastructure necessary for the development to take place.
The Council’s Draft Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which is published for consultation alongside this document, sets out further information on CIL and provides a clear understanding of how the Council proposes to manage infrastructure contributions in the future (including the relationship between CIL and Planning Obligations). Prior to the implementation of CIL the Council will also publish a ‘CIL Process Guide’ that will clarify how and when CIL will be calculated, collected and spent.
4
236 Charging Area
The charging area covers all of Worthing Borough with the exception of areas of the South Downs National Park located to the north of the town (See Appendix 1 for Map). The National Park Authority is a local planning authority in its own right. Although the level of development within the National Park land that lies within Worthing is likely to be extremely low it should be noted that the Park Authority will be the charging authority for CIL in these areas once it has a Levy in place. Until the National Park CIL is in place, the Borough Council will continue to collect any appropriate Section 106 contributions from development in the National Park under the delegation agreement.
How the proposed CIL rates have been calculated
Evidence has been prepared and published to enable the Council to propose a levy rate that strikes the ‘appropriate balance’ referred to above. A key part of this evidence base is the Viability Assessment which incorporates: an infrastructure evidence review; a valuation survey; and a cost survey.
This evidence informed the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule (PDCS) that was published for consultation in early 2013. Further testing has since been undertaken following consideration of the comments received on the PDCS and in response to revisions that have been made to the underlying legislation. Copies of the evidence base, including an updated Viability Assessment are available to view at the Council offices and on the Council’s website: http://www.adur-worthing.gov.uk/planning-policy/infrastructure/#worthing-cil
Justification for Introducing CIL
CIL cannot be expected to pay for all of the infrastructure required, but can be expected to make a significant contribution towards meeting the funding gap. The Council considers there is justification for charging CIL as there is a significant infrastructure funding gap (approximately £83m) as evidenced through the Infrastructure Funding Gap Review. The funds raised (currently estimated to be approximately £16.9m over the Plan period) will be used to reduce the gap between the cost of providing the required infrastructure and the amount of money available from other sources.
The Levy Rates Proposed
The rates proposed have been informed by evidence and, in line with regulations, they are considered to strike the most appropriate balance between the desirability of funding infrastructure in the area and the potential effects on the economic viability of development in the Borough.
The residential viability testing illustrated that, in general terms, most forms of residential development in all locations in Worthing are viable and can accommodate CIL charges. A single charge of £100m² for residential development is being proposed across the Borough.
5
237
The differential between food supermarket and general retail viability is not considered significant and therefore a single CIL rate of £150m² is recommended for all forms of retail development across the Borough.
The evidence indicates that the potential for office, industrial and warehousing schemes to be viably delivered will be limited in current market conditions. Therefore, no charge is proposed for such developments. All other uses such as education, leisure and institutional use will also be zero rated.
Use Proposed Levy (£/m²) Residential (C3) £100 m² Retail (A1-A5) £150 m²
The Council will calculate the ‘chargeable amount’ using the rates set out above multiplied by the gross internal area of the new building(s), taking demolished floorspace into account. The Council will use the HMRC Valuation Office Agency’s definition of gross internal floorspace and the rates will be indexed linked to the ‘All-in Tender Price Index’ published by RICS.
Scope of CIL
The following development types will be liable for CIL:
Development comprising 100 m² or more of new build floorspace; Development of less than 100 m² of new build floorspace that results in the creation of one or more dwellings; The conversion of a building that is no longer in lawful use.
Exemptions from CIL
CIL regulations prescribe development that is not chargeable by CIL, and exemptions and relief from paying a CIL charge for the following:
Changes of use that do not increase floorspace Development by charitable institutions on land owned by that charity where the development is to be used for the charitable purpose, subject to prescribed criteria. Social (affordable) housing relief Development of buildings and structures into which people do not normally go or only go intermittently for the purpose of inspecting or maintaining plant and machinery New build development of less than 100m² of gross internal floorspace, provided that it does not result in the creation of one or more dwellings. Self-build housing and residential extensions and annexes.
Where planning permission is granted for a new development that involves the extension or demolition of a building in lawful use, the level of CIL payable will be
6
238 calculated based on the net increase in floorspace. This means that, when calculating CIL liability, the existing floorspace of the building to be extended or demolished will be deducted from the total floorspace of the new development.
Discretionary Matters
To provide greater flexibility the Council proposes to permit the discretionary payment of CIL by instalments. The Draft Instalment Policy (Appendix 2) sets out the Council’s proposals to enable interested parties to consider its implication on development finance and delivery. Whilst comments are invited alongside the Draft Charging Schedule, it should be noted that the Draft Instalments Policy will not itself be subject to Public Examination. However, the Council will consider responses in finalising the policy.
The Council proposes to, at its discretion, allow land payment or infrastructure delivery (on or off-site) ‘in-kind’ in satisfaction of the whole or part of the CIL due in respect of a chargeable development. The value of land acquired or infrastructure delivered will be determined by the District Valuer (at the cost of the developer) whilst the cost of any ‘in-kind’ infrastructure will be agreed between the charging authority and the developer.
The Council proposes to allow discretionary relief for charitable investment activities (subject to the requirements of Regs 44-48 of CIL Regulations 2010). Discretionary relief from CIL can also now be offered for low-cost open market housing (less than 80% value in line with amendment Regulation 49a 2010).
At this stage Worthing Borough Council does not intend to adopt an Exceptional Circumstances policy. However, it should be noted that discretionary relief in exceptional circumstances can be activated and deactivated at any time and where this occurs notification will be provided on the Council’s website.
In line with CIL Regulations the Council proposes that it will apply up to 5% of CIL funds to ‘administrative expenses’ in connection with CIL.
First Draft Regulation 123 List
Regulation 123 of the CIL Regulations restrict the use of Planning Obligations for infrastructure that will be funded in whole, or in part, by CIL. To ensure there is no duplication between CIL and Planning Obligations in funding the same infrastructure the projects included on the Regulation 123 list cannot also be secured through Planning Obligations.
A CIL charging authority is expected to prepare a draft Regulation 123 list for the Examination of the CIL Charging Schedule and to then publish the final Regulation 123 list on its website after a CIL Charing Schedule is approved. For early consideration, an initial draft list of those infrastructure projects that the Council intends may be wholly, or partly, funded by CIL is set out in Appendix 3.
7
239 Appendix 1 Charging Area
8
240 Appendix 2 Draft Instalment Policy
It is considered reasonable that payment instalments are scheduled in proportion to the scale of development that is proposed. Therefore, in accordance with Regulation 69B of the CIL Amendment Regulations, Worthing Borough Council will apply the following Instalment Policy to all development on which CIL is liable. The Instalment Policy will come into effect on (insert date when known) and will be linked to the amount payable as recorded on the demand notice.
Sum Payment period (% of CIL charge)
Up to £50,000 Full payment within 60 days of commencement
£50,001 - £250,000 50% within 60 days of commencement 50% within 180 days of commencement
£250,001 - £500,000 25% within 60 days of commencement 25% within 180 days of commencement 25% within 270 days of commencement 25% within 360 days of commencement
£500,001 and over 25% within 60 days of commencement 25% within 180 days of commencement 25% within 360 days of commencement 25% within 540 days of commencement
It should be noted that, in line with the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended) there will be occasions when the amount of CIL payment in respect of a chargeable development is due in full on the date of commencement. See Regulation 71 for further details.
9
241 Appendix 3 First Draft Regulation 123 List
Regulation 123 of the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended) is the requirement for a published list of infrastructure projects or types of infrastructure that the Council (as Charging Authority) intends will be, or may be, wholly or partly funded by CIL. As a result, the Council cannot spend Planning Obligations on items within the Regulation 123 list.
There is no requirement for the Council to publish the draft Regulation 123 list at this stage. However, the Council considers it beneficial to publish an early draft now so that any comments received during the consultation can help to inform the later drafting of the list prior to Examination and then implementation. This, alongside the draft Planning Contributions SPD (also published for consultation), helps to clarify the Council’s intended future approach for managing developer contributions.
It is important to note that inclusion in this draft list does not signify a commitment from the Council to include any individual project in the final list or fund the entirety of any one project through CIL. In addition, the order in the table does not imply any preference for spend.
Infrastructure types and examples of projects that may be Exclusions wholly, or partly, funded by CIL (to be secured through Planning (Provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of) Obligations - S106 / S278 Agreements)
Affordable Housing
State education facilities N/A - additional school places - potentially helping to fund ‘Age of transfer’ changes
Flood risk management measures and beach management Site related flood defence infrastructure, such as the installation of SUDS.
Environmental improvements N/A - Teville Stream Restoration Project
Transport Improvements - to include consideration of the priorities On or off site transport and junction identified by the CLC and the Community Issues list. infrastructure required specifically to serve a new development - Traffic management schemes - Local and strategic transport improvements - Cycle network improvements - Public transport improvements
Healthcare facilities N/A
Community facilities N/A
Public open space, public leisure and sports facilities On site open space, play areas or leisure provision required specifically to serve a new development.
10
242 APPENDIX B
Developer Contributions
Draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Jan 2014
Summary
Worthing Borough Council is currently progressing work to adopt a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and it is expected that this will be in place by the end of 2014 / early 2015. The introduction of CIL will change the way in which developers contribute to the provision of infrastructure in the Borough. This document discusses the differences between CIL and Planning Obligations and explains how they will work together when CIL is in place.
This initial Draft was considered by Worthing Planning Committee (Dec 2013) prior to consideration by Joint Strategic Committee (February 6th) after which time it is expected that it will be published for consultation alongside the CIL Draft Charging Schedule.
243 CONTENTS
Section 1 – Introduction Page Introduction 2 Status of the document 2 Legislative and policy framework 3 Structure of the document 3
Section 2 – Mechanisms for securing infrastructure from development Planning Conditions 4 Community Infrastructure Levy 4 Planning Obligations (S106 & S278 Agreements) 5 The relationship between CIL and Planning Obligations 6 Implementation 7 General Principles 8
Section 3 – Community Infrastructure Levy Context 9 Infrastructure to be funded through CIL 9 Development that qualifies for CIL contributions 10 Setting the levy rate 10 Charging CIL 10 Exemptions 11 Collecting CIL 11 Spending CIL 11 Monitoring and review 12 The CIL Process – Indicative Steps 13
Section 4 – Planning Obligations Context 14 Thresholds 15 Common Planning Obligations 15 Viability 16 Monitoring 17 Administration fee 17
Section 5 - Affordable Housing Context 18 Definition of affordable housing 18 Worthing Planning Policy 19 On site provision 21 Funding affordable housing 21 Transfer prices 21 Management and Nominations 22 Type and Tenure of affordable housing 22 Affordability 22 Provision of specialist housing units 24 Design Standards 24 Calculating a financial contribution 25 Monitoring and review 25
1
244 Section 1 - Introduction
In order to create sustainable communities the Council wants to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is put in place to meet the needs of the local community. This includes not only the physical infrastructure such as road access and utilities that enable development to proceed in the first place, but also the community facilities and environmental improvements which will ensure that the occupiers of new developments have adequate access to services.
The Council expects developers to fund or contribute directly to the necessary improvements so as to mitigate or compensate for the impact of their proposal. These measures are known as ‘developer contributions’. The purpose of this Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) is to provide guidance to all interested parties about the types of contributions that will now be sought and the basis for the charges. It will enable a developer to work out at an early stage in the development process what contributions will be required in association with their development.
The document brings together the Council’s approach to seeking contributions from new development to address the cumulative impacts on infrastructure and to deliver affordable housing. The delivery of these elements will now be achieved through two key mechanisms: the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and Planning Obligations (Section 106 Agreements / Unilateral Undertakings). In addition, Planning Conditions are also used in certain circumstances. Although Planning Obligations can still be used by the Council this SPD clarifies that once the Council has introduced CIL it will become the principle mechanism for the collection of contributions from most development.
The key principles of CIL are set out in this document and these should be read in conjunction with the CIL Charging Schedule (when adopted) and other CIL guidance. In terms of Planning Obligations, changes to regulations have limited (and will further limit) their use however there is still an important role to be played by these for affordable housing and site specific infrastructure for some developments. This SPD is designed to collate information on these two mechanisms and clarify what the Council will expect from new development.
It is intended that this SPD will be adopted at the same time that the Council’s CIL Charging Schedule takes effect.
Status of the document
Supplementary Planning Documents provide greater detail on the Council's policies set out in the Core Strategy and high level planning documents. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) supports the production of SPDs where they can help developers make successful applications or aid infrastructure delivery.
Whilst SPDs are not examined by an Inspector, they are subject to a process of consultation and engagement with relevant parties and ultimately they must be adopted by the Council. When adopted, this guidance will replace all previous Worthing Borough Council guidance on Developer Contributions and will form a material consideration when assessing planning applications within the Borough.
2
245 Legislative and Policy Framework
The statutory framework for Planning Obligations is set out in Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
The Planning Act (2008) introduced powers for local authorities to apply a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to development proposals to support infrastructure delivery in an area. Local Authorities are entitled to charge CIL on the basis that it can contribute to well evidenced, costed and justified infrastructure. CIL Regulations 2010 and Guidance has since been amended, firstly by new statutory guidance published in 2012 under Section 221 of the Planning Act and more recently through a further iteration published in April 2013. Further amendment regulations will come into force in early 2014.
The NPPF, which provides the higher level planning framework, makes it clear that the planning system should identify and coordinate development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure. CIL is viewed as playing a key role in supporting this aim in that it will allow the local authority to raise funds from owners or developers of land undertaking new building projects to help fund the identified infrastructure requirements within the Borough. A key advantage of CIL is that more developments will help to fund the infrastructure required in an area and developers and landowners will have greater certainty as to what these costs will be.
When considering development proposals, the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF.
Worthing Core Strategy
A commitment to providing adequate infrastructure alongside new development and increasing the delivery of affordable housing are strong themes within the Worthing Core Strategy. The following policies and their supporting text are of particular relevance:
Policy CS10 – Affordable Housing (see Section 5 of this document) Policy CS11 – Protecting and enhancing recreation and community infrastructure Policy CS12 – New Infrastructure
Structure of the document
Following this introduction, Section 2 summarises the mechanisms through which planning contributions will be collected and how these will be implemented by the Council. It will also explain how CIL and Planning Obligations relate to each other. Sections 3 and 4 then explore CIL and Planning Obligations respectively in more detail. Finally, Section 5 provides detail with regards to the requirements for affordable housing.
3
246 Section 2 - Mechanisms for Securing Infrastructure from Development
CIL and Planning Obligations are the two main mechanisms available to the Council to ensure that future development addresses any adverse impacts that it creates. In addition, many forms of infrastructure will actually be integrated within development schemes as part of the design process. If necessary, Planning Conditions can be used to ensure that key requirements are met.
Planning Conditions and Obligations are a tried and tested mechanism to require individual developments to provide or pay for the provision of development specific infrastructure requirements. They are flexible and have historically delivered a wide range of site and community infrastructure benefits, including the transfer of land for community use and the pooling of contributions for certain types of infrastructure.
Whilst for Worthing, CIL is being designed to be the principle mechanism for collecting infrastructure contributions there will still be a role to play for Obligations and Conditions and this section will summarise these and explain how they relate to each other.
All applicants for planning permission will need to be aware of the opportunities to meet infrastructure needs within developments themselves, and the way good design and Planning Conditions can assist in achieving this. To meet this aim, developers are encouraged to engage in pre-application discussions with the Council at the earliest opportunity.
Planning Conditions
Planning Conditions are requirements made by the Council as Local Planning Authority for actions that are needed in order to make a development acceptable in planning terms. Whilst they cannot be used to secure financial contributions they can be used to ensure that certain elements related to the development proposal, and which may benefit the wider community, are carried out. In Worthing such conditions are likely to cover, amongst other things, the requirement to:
undertake archaeological investigations. implement necessary local site-related transport improvement (see also ‘Highway Improvements’ below). undertake appropriate flood risk solutions.
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
When adopted, the Levy will apply to most new developments and charges are based on the size and type of new development. CIL will generate funding to deliver a range of Borough-wide and local infrastructure projects that support residential and economic growth. The basis for the CIL charge will be detailed within the Council’s CIL Charging Schedule and supporting evidence. The developer contribution to infrastructure required through CIL is non-negotiable. Further information relating to CIL can be found in Section 3 of this SPD.
4
247 Planning Obligations (Section 106 Agreements and Unilateral Undertakings)
Development should make appropriate provision of services, facilities and infrastructure to meet its own needs. This means that where sufficient capacity does not exist the development should contribute what is necessary either on-site or by making a financial contribution towards provision elsewhere. These site specific developer contributions are secured by applying a Planning Obligation, secured by either a Section 106 Agreement or Unilateral Undertaking, which is prepared and concluded as part of the planning application process.
The NPPF supports the continued use of these mechanisms and it states that Local Planning Authorities can consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions or Planning Obligations. However, it is also emphasises that agreements should be sufficiently flexible to prevent planned development being stalled.
The NPPF (paragraphs 203-206) reiterates the statutory requirements set out in regulation of the 122 of the CIL Regulations that states that Planning Obligations should only be sought where the requirements are: - necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; - directly related to the development; and - fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
The above tests are embedded within law in Regulation 122 of CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended). Therefore, the Council can continue to use Planning Obligations alongside CIL for affordable housing and to mitigate the potential adverse impacts of development. As such, the Council will continue to negotiate financial or other contributions for site related infrastructure improvements that are required to: mitigate the impact of development; enable planning permission to be granted; and to make a new development acceptable or successful.
In accordance with Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) Planning Obligations can be used to:
a) restrict the development or use of the land in any specified way; b) require specified operations or activities to be carried out in, on, under or over the land; c) require the land to be used in any specified way; or d) require a sum or sums to be paid to the authority on a specified date(s) or periodically.
Planning Obligations can therefore be used to: prescribe the nature of the development (e.g. a proportion of the housing must be affordable); compensate for loss caused by a development (e.g. loss of open space); or mitigate a development’s impact (e.g. increase public transport provision). Agreements must be governed by the fundamental principle that planning permissions may not be bought or sold and they cannot be used to secure a share in the profit from development.
Unless it is agreed otherwise, Planning Obligations run with the land in perpetuity and are usually enforced against those with a legal interest in the land at the time of
5
248 any breach of the planning obligations until such time as they are discharged or otherwise modified.
Further information on Planning Obligations can be found in Section 4 (Planning Obligations) and Section 5 (Affordable Housing).
Highway Improvements
Agreements for the private sector funding of works on the strategic road network would normally be made under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended). These agreements provide a financial mechanism for ensuring delivery of mitigation works identified and determined as necessary for planning permission to be granted. However, it should be noted that under certain circumstances, particularly where works are required as mitigation for multiple developments, CIL may be the more appropriate funding mechanism.
Section 278 Agreements are not the responsibility of the Borough Council as Local Planning Authority. Further guidance on the Section 278 process and the steps which will need to be taken by a developer and others, when such an agreement is contemplated, can be found on the Department for Transport website and the West Sussex County Council website (as Highway Authority).
Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 provides for agreements to be used when a local Highways Authority wishes to enter into a legal agreement with a developer to adopt a highway – provided that it has has been constructed to a specified standard.
The relationship between CIL and Planning Obligations
Guidance makes it clear that Planning Obligations and CIL need to be complementary contribution mechanisms. This SPD will help to clarify how the Council intends to implement each mechanism in partnership.
In general, CIL is intended to provide infrastructure to support the development and growth of an area rather than to make individual planning applications acceptable in planning terms. As a result, there may still be some site specific impact mitigation requirements without which a development should not be granted planning permission (e.g. new school facilities within a strategic development, play areas, local highway and junction improvements and landscaping). These requirements (which must be directly related to the development) are more suitably delivered through a Planning Obligation or Section 278 agreement, in addition to the CIL charge. Furthermore, the provision of affordable housing lies outside of the remit of CIL and will continue to be secured, in the main, through Planning Obligations.
As such, there is still a legitimate role for Planning Obligations to enable the Council to be confident that the specific consequences of development can be mitigated in a way that would make individual developments acceptable. However, to ensure no ‘double dipping’ takes place it is important that the Council clearly differentiates the ‘general’ infrastructure projects that will be funded through CIL and, when establishing the appropriate levy rate, distinguishes these from the projects that will still be expected to be funded through Planning Obligations.
6
249
To help ensure that both mechanisms are complementary, reforms have also been introduced to restrict the use of Planning Obligations. Some of these have already come into effect and others will take effect from April 2015. To avoid duplication Regulation 123 (CIL Regulations 2010 – as amended) already restricts the use of Planning Obligations for infrastructure that will be funded in whole or in part through CIL. Furthermore, after April 2015, Planning Obligations can no longer be used as the basis for a tariff to fund infrastructure. Instead, the levy will be used as the mechanism for pooling contributions from a variety of developments to fund infrastructure.
In order to clarify what types of infrastructure will be funded by each mechanism once CIL is in place the Council will publish a Regulation 123 list. This list will set out the infrastructure projects and types that the Council intends will be, or may be, wholly or partly funded through CIL (and therefore not through Planning Obligations). Although CIL will be the principle mechanism for collecting developer contributions, the reality is that some developments in Worthing will be liable to pay both CIL (‘general infrastructure’) and Planning Obligations (site specific measures / affordable housing). However, in these instances the contributions will cover different infrastructure projects and developments will not be charged for the same infrastructure through each mechanism.
Overall, the principle is that all eligible developments must pay towards CIL and, in addition, affordable housing and any (identified) site specific requirements (usually for the more significant development sites) will be secured through Planning Obligations where they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. When setting the CIL charging rates it is important to understand the dynamics of CIL and Planning Obligations and how they may be utilised once CIL has been introduced. To help achieve this, when calculating the appropriate CIL rate for the Borough the envisaged and forecast requirements for infrastructure through Planning Obligations have been considered and factored into the viability testing model.
Implementation
The CIL rate to be collected from development will be set out within the Council’s adopted CIL Charging Schedule. Planning Obligations sought will be based on the Council’s assessment of the likely impact created by the development. In some cases the developer will be required to carry out assessments of need in connection with their planning application.
7
250
General Principles
By working with developers, the Council hope that many of the design / mitigation requirements are delivered as part of the initial development proposal.
Where necessary and appropriate, Planning Conditions will be used to ensure that the final proposal meets such requirements.
CIL will be the principle (non-negotiable) mechanism through which the Council will collect infrastructure contributions to fund more ‘general’ projects (see Section 3) to support the growth of the area.
However, Planning Obligations will still play a key role for some developments (see Sections 4 and 5).
In such circumstances where a proposal directly necessitates the provision of infrastructure to mitigate / enable development (that is not planned for delivery through CIL or any other funding programme) the Council may seek a contribution or delivery through a Planning Obligation (Section 106 Agreement / Unilateral Undertaking).
Where a proposal is required to deliver affordable housing (in line with Core Strategy Policy 10) this will be secured through a Section 106 Agreement.
Planning Obligations (Section 106 Agreements / Unilateral Undertakings) will not be used to secure infrastructure already identified for investment through the ‘Regulation 123’ list.
Section 278 Agreements may be used by West Sussex County Council (as Highway Authority) to ensure that works to the highway are carried out to an acceptable standard.
8
251 Section 3 – The Community Infrastructure Levy
Context
CIL is a new framework for the pooling of developer contributions by local authorities. It will be used to secure appropriate financial contributions and to support the delivery of any infrastructure required to support growth and mitigate the cumulative impacts of new development. The levy applies to most new buildings and charges are based on the size and type of the new development. The intention is that CIL will complement mainstream public funding and will provide a more consistent and transparent mechanism of raising financial contributions from development.
This section sets out in more detail the Council’s approach, as the Charging Authority, to the implementation of CIL within Worthing. The CIL Charging Schedule will set out the actual charges on development. This Schedule will be subject to an independent examination in 2014 and, subject to it being found sound and adopted, it will then sit alongside this SPD which will be adopted when the Worthing CIL comes into force. When in place, the Council will also publish a manual that will help to provide understanding and guidance as to how CIL will be implemented and enforced.
As previously explained, developers (usually of large schemes) may still be required to provide specific infrastructure through Planning Obligations to mitigate the direct impact of the development proposed and to help deliver affordable housing. However, in these instances a standard fee is also charged through CIL to enable the delivery of new or improved infrastructure needed to support the development generally. This can then be pooled with contributions from other developments to deliver items of wider (non site-specific) infrastructure identified as a priority to support growth within the Borough.
Infrastructure to be funded through CIL
Although CIL will make a significant contribution to the infrastructure requirements of an area generated by new development, other sources of public funding will continue to bear the main burden of infrastructure funding. CIL is intended to contribute to some of the funding gaps that remain once existing sources of funding have been taken into account. The rate set must strike an appropriate balance between the desirability of funding infrastructure and the potential impact on the economic viability of development (as a whole).
Infrastructure which can be funded by the levy can cover a broad range of facilities or services which provides communities with increased flexibility to choose what new infrastructure they need as a priority. The levy can also be spent on the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure.
A list of infrastructure that will be funded through CIL (called the Regulation 123 list) will be available on the Council’s website following the adoption of the Levy. This list will be reviewed regularly to ensure it reflects current infrastructure needs. When CIL is adopted (or from April 2015) Planning Obligations cannot be used where there
9
252 have been five or more Planning Obligations, in relation to the same infrastructure or type of infrastructure, entered into on and since 6th April 2010. There is no restriction on pooling for items not capable of being funded by CIL, such as affordable housing.
Development that qualifies for CIL contributions
As set out in legislation, CIL can be charged on all new ‘chargeable’ development where there is an increase (net) in gross internal floorspace. Where there is an existing building on site in a lawful use that will be demolished as part of the development, the Gross Internal Area (GIA) of that building will be deducted from the total chargeable floorspace of a new development.
CIL can only be charged where the GIA of the development is more than 100m² except where the development is for a single residential unit of less than 100 m² (these will still have to pay CIL). Buildings that people do not normally go, or only go into intermittently (such as for the inspection of machinery) will not be liable to pay the levy.
Setting the levy rate
The Borough Council, as charging authority, must produce a document called a Charging Schedule which sets out the type of development that is required to pay CIL and the rate of the levy. When setting the levy the Council must seek to provide a balance between collecting revenue to fund infrastructure and ensuring that the rates are not so high that they put development at serious risk. The Council will also need to draw on infrastructure planning that underpins the development strategy for the area to help identify the total infrastructure funding gap.
Rates set must be supported by evidence, including the economic viability of new development and the area’s infrastructure needs. One standard rate can be set or, if justified, specific rates for different areas and types of development can be established. If supported by evidence, the ability to set differential rates gives the Council flexibility to deal with varying circumstances.
In calculating individual charges for the levy, the Council will be required to apply an annually updated index of inflation to keep the levy responsive to market conditions.
The key pieces of evidence (available to view on the Council’s website) that have been used to support the setting of the Worthing CIL charge are the:
Infrastructure Funding Gap Review; and Viability Assessment (and supporting documents) which assesses the impact of potential CIL charges on the viability of new development taking account of other costs.
Charging CIL
The CIL charge is expressed in £ per m² on the net additional increase in floorspace. It will be collected as a cash contribution although in some cases it may be more appropriate to transfer land or infrastructure (‘in-kind’) to the charging authority as
10
253 full, or part, payment. In such cases the land must be used to provide, or facilitate the provision of, infrastructure to support development in the area.
When adopted, the CIL charge required from new development will be set out in the Charging Schedule which will have been subject to a statutory process, including independent Examination.
Exemptions
The CIL charge will be non-negotiable. However, mandatory exemptions and relief from CIL include social (affordable) housing relief and developments by charitable institutions on their land to be used wholly or mainly for the purposes of their charitable activity. Further information relating to exemptions and other discretionary matters is set out in the Draft Charging Schedule.
The Council, at this stage, does not intend to implement any additional discretionary exemptions for exceptional circumstances. However, the Council will ensure that the level of charge is set so that the majority of development in the borough is viable and remains so as part of the monitoring and management of CIL. Furthermore, the impact of the introduction of CIL and the potential benefits or otherwise of introducing this levy will be kept under review.
As explained in Section 2, in exceptional circumstances where it can be demonstrated that the combined effect of developer contributions make a development unviable the Council will collect CIL but may seek to negotiate other elements where appropriate.
Collecting CIL
The levy’s charges will become due from the date that a chargeable development is commenced. When planning permission is granted, the Council will issue a liability notice setting out the amount of the levy, the payment procedure and the possible consequences of non-compliance. As detailed in the Draft Charging Schedule, the Council intends to adopt an instalment policy that will in effect stagger CIL payments for larger development sites in the Borough.
The responsibility to pay the levy runs with the ownership of land on which the liable development will be situated. Although liability rests with the landowner, the regulations recognise that others involved in a development may wish to pay. To allow for this, anyone can come forward and assume liability for the development.
Spending CIL
Charging authorities are required to spend the levy’s revenue on what they see as the infrastructure needed to support the development of their area. The assessment of ‘need’ will largely by informed by the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) and Infrastructure Funding Gap Review (available to view on the Council’s website).
The levy is intended to focus on the provision of new or improved infrastructure and should not be used to remedy pre-existing deficiencies unless those deficiencies will
11
254 be made more severe by new development. Unlike contributions collected through Planning Obligations there is no time constraint or pooling restrictions for the spending of monies collected through CIL.
The Council must allocate a meaningful proportion (15-25%) of levy revenues raised in each neighbourhood back to that neighbourhood. This will ensure that where a neighbourhood bears the brunt of a new development, it receives sufficient money to help it manage those impacts. For Worthing (where there are no Parish Councils and currently no Neighbourhood Forums / Plans) the Council, as charging authority, will retain the funds to spend on behalf of the local community.
The Council may pass money other bodies to deliver infrastructure which will benefit the development of Worthing. This may include, for example, the Environment Agency for flood defences or West Sussex County Council for education infrastructure. The Council will also be able to collaborate and pool its revenue from their respective levies to support the delivery of sub-regional infrastructure.
In line with guidance, the Council intends to use revenue from the levy to recover the costs of administering the levy (up to 5% of total revenue).
Monitoring and Review
To ensure that the levy is open and transparent, the Council will prepare a report on the levy for the previous financial year. This will be incorporated within the Council’s Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) which will be placed on the Council’s website by the end of each year. The report for CIL will set out:
The amount of CIL collected within the monitoring year; The total amount of CIL collected since adoption; The expected CIL income from permitted applications; How much CIL revenue has been spent; and The infrastructure delivered using funding collected from CIL charges.
It will be important to ensure that the CIL charge remains appropriate and reflects both the identified funding gap and the levels of viability within the Borough. In the event that it is considered necessary to change the Charging Schedule the Council will follow the same stages of draft preparation, consultation and an independent Examination before the revised Charging Schedule can be adopted by the Council. It is estimated that this process will take approximately 18 months with the costs being recouped as part of the administration charge collected.
Further details on the levy charge can be found on the Council’s website. When adopted, the Council CIL Charging Schedule should be read in conjunction with this document.
12
255 The CIL Process - Indicative Steps
1. Informed by the CIL Charging Schedule (and, if necessary, advice from Council Officers) the applicant will determine whether the scheme proposed is liable for CIL.
2. The developer provides the appropriate floorspace details with the application. An Assumption of Liability Notice should be completed and included with the paperwork.
3. Once full details of the proposal are known the Council will determine the levy based on the adopted charges.
4. If planning permission is granted a Liability Notice will be issued and the levy rate will be registered by the Council’s Land Charges section.
5. Once verification of commencement date has been received a Demand Notice(s) will be issued to the person(s) liable to pay CIL.
6. On final payment of the outstanding CIL charge, the Council’s Land Charges section will remove the charge from the land charges register.
13
256 Section 4 - Planning Obligations
Context
As explained in Section 2, in line with CIL Regulation 122, the Council will consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of Planning Obligations which must be directly related to the development. Although CIL will be collected from all eligible development to fund ‘general’ infrastructure there may be cases where the development proposed results in a specific need for infrastructure (or access to a service) that is not currently available, and that has not been identified for investment through CIL or other investment programmes. In such circumstances, the Council would expect these aspects to be addressed as part of the proposal at the time planning permission is sought – and secured by a Planning Obligation. In addition, the provision of affordable housing will continue to be provided through Planning Obligations and this requirement is explained in more detail in Section 5.
Where developers are expected to contribute towards the provision of infrastructure in association with development, this will be delivered on-site or through a contribution to off-site provision through a Planning Obligation (usually a Section 106 Agreement). In considering the Planning Obligation requirements for a development, the current capacity of infrastructure will be considered to ensure that obligations are only necessary where present facilities are not able to accommodate the additional needs that will be generated from the development. This assessment will be undertaken in partnership with other relevant bodies such as the County Council (further information can be found on the WSCC website).
All Planning Obligation requirements will be site specific and therefore the level of works required cannot be standardised. Whilst this guidance aims to be as clear as possible, developers are encouraged to enter into pre-application discussions with the Council at the earliest opportunity so that they are aware of their CIL liabilities and any potential Planning Obligations that may be required. As an application progresses, developers are encouraged to draft any appropriate ‘Heads of Terms’ to satisfy required Planning Obligations in a Section 106 Agreement.
Any contribution in the form of a financial payment will be required to be paid either once development starts, or on first occupation (or occasionally other such triggers as agreed by the Council). If this is some time after the permission was granted, the contributions may be subject to indexation and increased in line with the General Tender Prices Index or an appropriate alternative.
Planning Obligations have to be registered as local land charges. Applicants will therefore need to produce title to the site (in the form of land registry office copies if the land is registered, or an epitome of title if the land is unregistered) and third parties with a legal interest in the land will have to be party to the agreements.
Any planning permission will only be issued once the Section 106 Agreement has been completed or Unilateral Undertaking has been provided and is satisfactory. If a satisfactory Planning Obligation has not been provided within the relevant target period, the application will subsequently be refused.
14
257 Thresholds
Most developments, however small, are likely to add to the demand for infrastructure. However, this needs to be balanced against the practicalities of requiring smaller developments to contribute towards provision and the need to ensure that development is not discouraged from coming forward. For this reason, and to respond to the emergence of CIL and meet with regulations it is likely that Planning Obligations will only be used for significant schemes in the borough. For affordable housing this will be for developments of over 5 dwellings (in line with Policy 10 of the Worthing Core Strategy). Where a proposed development is likely to need a Planning Obligation the Council will endeavour to bring this to the attention of the developer at the first opportunity.
Common Planning Obligations
As previously explained, other than for affordable housing, Planning Obligations will only be used to mitigate against any impact on the environment or local services that arise directly as a result of any particular developments. These will be cases where the development proposed results in a specific and significant need for infrastructure (or access to a service) that is not currently available and has not been identified for investment through CIL or any other investment programme.
Any Planning Obligation must be directly related to the development and the demands for infrastructure must be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. The necessity for Planning Conditions and Planning Obligations therefore needs to be assessed against the needs of each site and project. Where appropriate, the Council will make this assessment using relevant evidence such as the ‘Open Space & Recreation Study’, transport studies and County Council’s Planning for School Places data. Where it is determined that a Planning Obligation is required the Council will justify this need to demonstrate how the site specific impacts of the development would need to be mitigated.
As an example, a development proposal may require a major junction improvement to ‘unlock’ a development site. Alternatively, a major housing development may take place in a location where there is no capacity for additional school places and is of a scale that would justify the need for a new school(s) - hence a Planning Obligation would be required to secure funding for the new school.
Further examples of site specific infrastructure that may be required and negotiated through a Planning Obligation (if present facilities are not able to accommodate the additional need generated by the development):
Transport requirements Site specific flood risk / Sustainable Drainage Public open space / Children’s play area / Formal sport Health facilities Crime Prevention Education
15
258 Viability
The Council takes the view that costs incurred in delivering a high quality and sustainable development should take into account the need to provide infrastructure and be in compliance with the Council’s planning policies. As such, developer contributions are a necessary cost of development and developers should factor them into proposals from the earliest stage and take them into account when purchasing the land.
To ensure that the infrastructure requirements placed on developers are not too onerous, comprehensive viability testing has been undertaken when firstly, setting the original affordable housing requirements and subsequently, for the setting of CIL (which also took full account of the existing affordable housing requirements). This testing has also had regard to other costs placed on development.
Despite this, and particularly during times of difficult market conditions, the Council is sensitive to viability issues for developers in providing for a range or infrastructure as part of new development. Regard will be had to the impact of CIL (or the phasing of CIL) and viability when any Planning Obligations are sought. This approach is in line with the NPPF, which accepts that special and specific circumstances may occasionally mean that there is insufficient value in a proposal to support the full range of developer contributions identified.
In these instances, whilst the Council is not able to negotiate with regard to CIL, the Council may enter into negotiations with regards to other contributions. However, robust evidence must be provided in writing by the applicant to support any claims that the infrastructure requirements would make a scheme unviable and the Council will need to balance this against the need to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is provided to address the impact of the development and make it acceptable in planning terms.
Any viability Appraisal that might be required will be an ‘open book’ assessment which should include information on: existing land values; proposed use values; demolition and construction costs; finance and marketing costs; assumed yield; site abnormals; and the development timetable.
Where viability concerns are raised, evidence should include an assessment carried out by an independent person of the costs of providing the contributions required and how this impacts on the economic viability of the development. Whilst there may be a level of negotiation appropriate to some schemes where viability is questionable it should be reiterated that these circumstances will not be the norm and the Council will seek to ensure that the majority of schemes in the Borough provide and deliver the Council’s infrastructure requirements in full. In cases where contributions cannot be agreed the Council may seek the services of a viability consultant (usually the District Valuer) to validate and assess the evidence of viability provided. The cost of any consultant appointed by the Council would need to be met by the developers. In most instances it is expected that this will help to resolve any disputes with regard to scheme viability but, at this point, if the Council is still not satisfied then planning permission for the development proposed is likely to be refused.
16
259 In the event of developments becoming stalled for a significant period of time due to reasons of viability or changes in circumstances the applicants / developers are able to discuss with the Council whether a review of a previous agreement may be appropriate. The Council will consider such a scenario on its merits and in accordance with the viability testing and evidence provided.
Monitoring
When a Planning Obligation (Section 106 Agreement / Unilateral Undertaking) has been completed, a copy is placed on the planning register and details are also recorded on a database for monitoring purposes. Where a development has been started or completed checks are then undertaken to ensure that the requirements of the planning permission have been complied with. As part of the Local Development Framework the Council publishes an Annual Monitoring Report in December each year which includes information on the planning contributions collected and schemes implemented using the funds.
If it is evident that the Planning Obligation is not being complied with officers will instigate enforcement action if other measures fail. Planning contributions can be enforced through the use of an injunction, which can stop the development proceeding. In addition, the Council will consider charging developers interest for late payment of financial contributions.
Administration Fee
The monitoring and administration of Planning Obligations is an impact of a development and is one which the Council would not have to bear if the development were not to take place. Developers will therefore be required to pay the Council’s lawyers their reasonable costs for preparing an agreement or undertaking.
For Section 106 Agreements, legal costs are usually charged at the hourly rate of the solicitor having conduct of the matter. A flat rate is payable for checking title and Unilateral Undertakings provided, however where queries are raised the hourly rate then applies. No VAT is payable. At the time of writing legal costs in connection with Planning Obligations are being reviewed.
While financial contributions will normally be expected to be paid on commencement of development, the legal costs will be payable upon signing of the agreement, where the applicant’s solicitor has provided an undertaking in respect of those costs at the outset. All Planning Obligation financial payments will be indexed linked to cover cases when the start of development might be delayed.
17
260 Section 5 - Affordable Housing
Context
As previously explained, affordable housing sits outside the scope of CIL and, as such, this requirement will be met through the use of Planning Obligations.
Housing is a fundamental need that helps to support the local economy. It is well documented that unsuitable housing conditions or being unable to access affordable housing can negatively affect quality of life. Local housing evidence demonstrates that Worthing has very significant levels of affordable housing need. For this reason, and supported by national guidance, the Council will continue to seek to secure appropriate affordable housing provision on development sites in the Borough.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) enables local authorities to seek affordable housing on suitable sites. Paragraph 50 states that to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive mixed communities, local planning authorities should:
Plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community. Identify the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required in particular locations. Where they have identified that affordable housing is needed, set policies for meeting this need on-site (or off-site or financial contribution if this can be robustly justified).
Definition of Affordable Housing
The NPPF defines affordable housing as follows:
‘Affordable housing includes social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing, provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices. Affordable housing should include provision for the home to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households or, if these restrictions are lifted, for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision’
Social rented housing is owned by local authorities and registered providers, for which guideline target rents are determined through the national rent regime. It may also be owned by other persons and provided under equivalent rental arrangements to the above, as agreed with the local authority or with the Homes and Communities Agency as a condition of grant.
Affordable rented housing is let by local authorities or registered providers of social housing to households who are eligible for social rented housing. Affordable Rent is not subject to the national rent regime but is subject to other rent controls that require a rent of no more than 80 per cent of the local market rent.
18
261 Intermediate affordable housing is homes for sale and rent provided at a cost above social rent, but below market levels subject to the criteria in the affordable housing definition above. These can include shared equity products (shared ownership and equity loans), other low cost homes for sale and intermediate rent but not affordable rented housing”.
Homes that do not meet the above definitions, such as ‘low cost market’ housing, may not be considered as ‘affordable housing’ for planning purposes.
Worthing Planning Policy
Local housing evidence has identified that there is an acute affordable housing need in Worthing. This is as a result of a combination of market conditions, barriers to entry, development constraints, low earning bias and the existing social housing stock. To help meet the housing needs of the borough, there therefore needs to be a proactive approach to deliver more affordable homes. However, in terms of achieving overall delivery, account also needs to be taken of the impact of the requirements for affordable housing and the pressure this may place on the viability of development.
This balance, and the Council’s approach to affordable housing, is set out within the Worthing Core Strategy. The requirement for affordable housing will be applied in accordance with Policy CS10 (Affordable Housing) which sets a stepped requirement for affordable housing either through on-site provision or by financial contribution. The targets were informed by evidence and are considered to be realistic and achievable.
Core Strategy Policy 10 - Affordable Housing
A mix of affordable housing, including social rent and intermediate housing will be sought to meet local needs on all but the smallest sites:
on all sites of 6 to 10 dwellings, 10% affordable housing will be sought via a financial contribution on all sites of 11 to 14 dwellings, 20% affordable housing will be sought via a financial contribution on all sites of 15 or more dwellings, 30% affordable housing will be sought
The policy approach is to seek to secure on-site provision on sites of 15 dwellings or more, with financial contributions for sites of 6-14 units. This is subject to:
the economics of providing affordable housing the extent to which the provision of affordable housing would prejudice other planning objectives to be met from the development of the site the mix of units necessary to meet local needs and achieve a successful development.
Where the Council accepts that there is robust justification, the affordable housing requirement may be secured through off-site provision.
The appropriate mix in terms of housing tenures, house sizes of affordable housing and spread within a development will be determined in response to identified needs, funding priorities and housing strategy targets at the time of the development.
19
262 It should be noted that Policy CS10 applies to the number of units (gross) proposed on all housing sites; mixed use sites that incorporate an element of residential development and open market sheltered / extra-care housing (if self-contained). The policy also applies to the conversion or change of use of any building, whether or not it is already in residential use. The policy does not, however, apply to:
accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers; residential accommodation, which is to be used as incidental to the main dwelling; any part-time/non permanent accommodation where full time occupancy is restricted by condition; housing for more vulnerable members of the community e.g. those with mental health problems or physical disabilities that require a high level of on-site support; and care homes, extra care homes and nursing homes falling within Use Class C2 that generally provide non self-contained accommodation.
As stated above, the starting point in determining the level of affordable housing to be provided is the number of dwellings (gross) proposed on a development site. However, the size of the development should not be artificially reduced in order to reduce or eliminate the affordable housing requirement, for example by sub-dividing sites or reducing the density of all or part of a site. To resist this, the Council will seek to ensure that efficient use is made of land and that proposals are not made which represent an underdevelopment of a site. Similarly, the Council will need to be satisfied that developers are not bringing sites forward in phases to avoid specific affordable housing thresholds. If this is shown to be the case, the Council will seek to apply the relevant affordable housing target to all subsequent phases, based on the capacity of all phases, including those already built.
It is important to note that the provision of affordable housing (full compliance with Core Strategy policy 10) has been incorporated into the viability testing undertaken during the production of a Community Infrastructure Levy for the Borough. Therefore, in most circumstance, the Council does not expect viability considerations to reduce the ability of a site to contribute towards affordable housing provision. Despite this, if in exceptional circumstances, a developer considers that there are significant and relevant economic constraints affecting a development and that these are sufficient to jeopardise the developer meeting the affordable housing requirements, the developer must demonstrate this by submitting details of scheme costs and a financial appraisal of scheme viability. If necessary, the District Valuer may be engaged (at the cost of the developer) to assess the developer’s viability claims. If genuine and significant economic constraints exist, the Council will discuss with the developer the options available to achieve economic viability.
On-site provision of affordable housing
The Council is committed to the achievement of sustainable and balanced communities and as such, Core Strategy Policy CS10 sets out a strong presumption for affordable housing to be provided on-site for schemes of 15 or more units. So that affordable properties can be secured for successive occupiers the provision of affordable housing will normally be achieved through the involvement of a registered
20
263 provider agreed by the Council and registered with the Homes and Communities Agency. The Council will expect the freehold interest on the affordable housing to be transferred to the registered provider. In rare circumstances where the transfer is a leasehold arrangement, the lease will be for a minimum of 125 years and the land rent will be restricted to a peppercorn charge.
In exceptional cases where the Council agrees (by reference to the viability assessment and other relevant factors) that full on-site provisions cannot be achieved, alternative options for the contribution may be considered. This could include changes to the affordable housing tenure mix, the number of affordable units, the phasing of delivery, contributions towards off-site provision or the provision by the developer of an alternative suitable site for the affordable housing. If it is agreed that an element of affordable housing could be delivered on an alternative site then this would be in addition to the contribution towards affordable housing that the alternative site would be expected deliver site in its own right.
Funding affordable housing
It is anticipated that all intermediate and affordable rent properties required under Core Strategy Policy CS10 as a Planning Obligation on mixed tenure sites (market and affordable) will be delivered with no or little public subsidy. As such, developers should assume that there is no public subsidy to support the delivery of affordable housing through Planning Obligations, both when considering viability issues and when agreeing a price with the landowner for the purchase of the site. Lack of grant funding therefore cannot be used to demonstrate the non-viability of a scheme.
The Council has a very limited amount of capital funding available to support the delivery of affordable housing, mainly derived from commuted sum contributions generated from earlier developments, and from right to buy ‘claw-back’ receipts. This funding is primarily intended to support the delivery of affordable housing additional to that delivered through planning policy and further information on this source of funding can be obtained from Council Officers.
Transfer prices
In return for building the affordable housing units on site, a developer will agree and receive a payment from a registered provider for the affordable units. This will not be equivalent to the full market value of the property but will be at a discounted rate and will vary depending on the tenure of unit provided. The developer/applicant should enter into early negotiations with a registered provider in order to determine the transfer price of the units.
Given the flexibility in charging rent levels, developers and landowners are recommended to take account of the guidance on rent levels and to liaise with registered providers prior to submitting any applications. This will help to provide understanding as to how the rent levels can impact on the price that registered providers can offer to either purchase the affordable housing or to enter into a management agreement to run it.
21
264 Management and Nominations
The Council’s preference is for the affordable housing to be transferred to a registered provider and managed as affordable housing in accordance with the Tenant Services Authority (TSA) guidelines.
Developers may, in certain circumstances, develop the affordable housing but choose to retain ownership and manage it directly. In such cases, the Council will need to ensure that the affordable housing is available to those judged to be in housing need by the Council and that appropriate management arrangements are in place, that the affordable housing is provided at an affordable level and that the housing remains affordable to successive occupiers to be nominated by the Council.
The provision of affordable housing will be subject to a Nominations Agreement between the Council and the registered provider. The agreement gives the Council 100% nomination rights for first lets and sales and 75% thereafter. The Agreement will set out how the affordable housing will be allocated and the Council will nominate applicants according to housing need and in accordance with the Council’s Housing Allocations Policy.
Type and tenure of affordable housing provision
The Council expects a variety of affordable dwellings types to be provided to meet the range of housing needs identified in the Borough through key evidence documents such as the Council’s Housing Register and the most up-to-date Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). However, the precise mix of dwelling type for the affordable element will be informed by the characteristics of the site, the type of development and its location. It should also be recognised that demands will change as needs vary over time.
As such, the Council will negotiate the exact tenure, type and size split on each site through pre-application discussions. The mix in terms of property type for any particular development site will be advised by the Council’s Housing and Enabling Manager who will assess need with reference to the local evidence.
Affordability
In considering planning applications for mixed-tenure sites (market and affordable), regard will be made to the proposed affordability of any affordable housing to be provided in accordance with the following guidance.
Affordable Rent
Whilst Social Rented housing is tied to target rents, there is much greater flexibility in relation to the new Affordable Rent model, with rent levels that can be charged at anything up to 80% of market rents. Market rent levels in Worthing are high so the affordable rent level has the potential to present some challenges to ensure that rents remain affordable to meet local need. At or near 80% of market rent levels, tenants in Worthing would face some of the highest Affordable Rents in the country, significantly above Social Rents, without necessarily having correspondingly high
22
265 household incomes to meet these costs. This would be a particular concern with regard to the affordability of larger properties (three plus bedrooms).
On developments which include properties of 3 bedrooms or more, the Council would expect to see the rent levels set at no more than 70% of open market rent (OMR) and no more than 65% of open market rent for properties with 4 or more bedrooms. In addition, where a development is exclusively (or largely) made up of 1 and 2 bedroom properties the Council would expect a number to be set at rent levels below 80% of OMR (appropriate number to be agreed in discussion with the Council’s Housing and Enabling Manager).
Intermediate
Intermediate affordable housing can play an important role in meeting the housing needs of those who can afford to pay more than social rents (and who are unlikely to be a priority for this accommodation) but who cannot afford suitable housing in the open market. There are a variety of intermediate affordable housing products of which shared ownership housing is one form.
The Council wishes to ensure that intermediate affordable housing provided within the borough is a realistic and affordable option for households across a spread of incomes, from £20,000 to £60,000 (gross) rather than only being available to households with incomes towards the upper end of this spectrum. Furthermore, applicants/developers will need to demonstrate that any intermediate affordable housing proposed meets the definition of affordable housing, in that it should be available at a total monthly cost which is less than the costs of buying or renting privately within Worthing.
The Council is of the view that a household can be considered to be able to afford intermediate affordable housing when rental elements (on the landlord’s share) and mortgage payments (on the part they own) and any service charge, constitute no more than 30% of gross household income. The Council will require that the average cost of intermediate affordable housing provision (mortgage plus rent plus any service charge) is affordable on this measure, to households with gross incomes of no more than £31,000, assuming that purchasing households are able to pay a deposit of 5% of the value of the share of the property they are purchasing, taking out a repayment mortgage over 25 years and based on reasonable assumptions on the mortgage interest rates available on this form of tenure at the time of the application, which should be agreed with the Council.
To ensure that the affordability of intermediate products is kept up-to-date and reflects changes to incomes and housing costs going forward the figure for gross annual income will be indexed against lower quartile house prices in Worthing. Where there is a year-on-year uplift in lower quartile house prices in Worthing, the gross annual income figure threshold (currently £31,000) would be uplifted on the same percentage basis. These will be reported within the Council’s Annual Monitoring Report.
The Council acknowledges that the above guidance will impact on the price a registered provider can pay to a developer for an affordable unit. However, where
23
266 this affects the viability of a scheme and can be robustly demonstrated, it will form an element of the negotiation process. However, it is acknowledged that generally Affordable Rent should have less impact on viability than Social Rent. The proposed affordability measures are intended to strike an appropriate balance between affordability and viability.
Provision of specialist housing units
On some sites, where there is a specific local need, the provision of specialist or supported housing may be required. For example, homes designed specifically for wheelchair users, people with learning disabilities or other special needs groups. The Council is prepared to consider the provision of such specialist housing in lieu of conventional affordable housing requirements, and any such proposals will need to be considered on their own merits in response to a local need.
Where the provision of such dwellings is demonstrated to either impact on viability of delivering the overall affordable housing target and / or to require dwellings to be significantly more than the size standards laid out elsewhere, then the Council may agree to negotiate a reduction in the overall proportion of affordable housing required.
Design Standards
To aid the promotion of inclusive and sustainable communities, the provision of on- site affordable housing should integrate seamlessly into the layout of any development. As such, units will be required to be distributed throughout the proposed development area and large groupings of single tenure / single-type dwellings should be avoided. Within smaller developments or apartment blocks it is accepted that management issues mean that ‘pepper-potting’ is less appropriate and that affordable housing may be provided in clusters.
The Council seeks a high standard of design for all development and affordable housing is no exception. Affordable housing should not be distinguishable from market housing in terms of appearance, build quality or materials. The affordable housing element must also comply with the HCA Design and Quality Standards regardless of whether Social Housing Grant has been secured. In addition, to ensure that design is of high quality and that an adequate amount of living accommodation is provided proposals must comply with the Council’s Guide to Residential Development SPD (2013) and Space Standards SPD (2012).
Calculating a financial contribution
For reasons of viability and housing management, Core Strategy policy CS10 requires that affordable housing will be sought via a financial contribution on all sites of 6 to 10 dwellings (10%) and 11 to 14 dwellings (20%).
The Council will seek a financial contribution that would allow affordable housing providers to secure the land in lieu of and equivalent to on-site provision. Any financial contributions received will be used to provide affordable housing in partnership with Registered Providers.
24
267
The Council’s approach to calculating affordable housing contributions, including tabulated examples, will be set out in this document. These figures are currently being updated and agreed by the District Valuer and will be included prior to being published for consultation.
Monitoring and Review
The Council will use the Annual Monitoring Report to record monies collected for affordable housing along with the amounts allocated and spent as well as the units delivered on-site. Any significant change to the processes outlined above will require a change in policy or amendments to this SPD.
Link to Evidence Base:
http://www.adur-worthing.gov.uk/planning-policy/infrastructure/
Contact:
01273 263009
25
268
Joint Strategic Committee 6 February 2014 Agenda Item 10
Ward: [All in Worthing]
Mental Health Challenge
Report by the Executive Health for Planning, Regeneration and Wellbeing.
1.0 Summary
1.1 This report has been prepared in response to the Motion presented in December 2013, proposing that the Worthing Borough Council sign up to the Local Authorities Mental Health Challenge.
1.2 Members have requested further information on the implications of signing up to this pledge on the Council’s resources and whether there is any risk of services being duplicated. This report provides information on this and makes recommendations for Members to consider.
2.0 The Local Authorities Mental Health Challenge.
2.1 The Mental Health Challenge, “We’re in,” was presented as a Motion to Worthing Borough Council in December. Funded by the Department of Health and the Mental Health Strategic Partnership, it has been developed by some key national players in the field of mental health: the Centre for Mental Health, Mental Health Foundation, Mind, Rethink Mental Illness, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and Young Minds.
2.2 This Motion recognises the key role of local councils in terms of tackling mental health in their communities and has the aim of encouraging the adoption of a proactive approach to this issue through the creation of a challenge.
2.3 It sets out a number of issues, including:
1 in 6 people will experience a mental health problem in any given year;
The World Health Organisation predicts that depression will be the second most common health condition worldwide by 2020;
Mental ill health costs some £105 billion each year in England alone;
People with a severe mental illness die up to 20 years younger than their peers in the UK;
There is often a circular relationship between mental health and issues such as housing, employment, family problems or debt.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 10 6 February 2014 269 2.4 The Motion proposes that:
local authorities have a crucial role to play in improving the mental health of everyone in our community and tackling some of the widest and most entrenched inequalities in health;
Mental health should be a priority across all the local authority’s functions, from public health, adult social care and children’s services to housing, planning and public realm;
All Councillors, whether members of the Executive or Scrutiny and in their community and casework roles, can play a positive role in championing mental health on an individual and strategic basis. 2.5 To commit to the Motion the Council would need to: 1. Appoint an elected member as ‘mental health champion’ across the council; 2. Identify a ‘lead officer’ for mental health to link in with colleagues across the council; 3. Follow the implementation framework for the mental health strategy where it is relevant to the council’s work and local needs; 4. Work to reduce inequalities in mental health in our community; 5. Work with the NHS to integrate health and social care support; 6. Promote wellbeing and initiate and support action on public mental health; 7. Tackle discrimination on the grounds of mental health in our community; 8. Encourage positive mental health in our schools, colleges and workplaces; 9. Proactively engage and listen to people of all ages and backgrounds about what they need for better mental health; 10. Sign up to the Time to Change pledge. 2.6 The Member Champion role aims to influence the full range of the authority’s activities and responsibilities. Key activities might include:
Raising awareness of mental health issues in the development of council policies and strategies, and in public forums;
Ensuring the overview and scrutiny committee have a view to mental health in their work plans;
Leading discussions on mental health issues with NHS organisations in the local area;
Speaking with schools, businesses and community groups about mental health;
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 10 6 February 2014 270 Linking with mental health service users and voluntary groups locally to understand their needs and concerns;
Tackling myths and misperceptions about mental health in the local community. 2.7 In terms of benefits to signing up, those councils that sign up to the Motion will be:
Provided with resources (for example published evidence, expert opinion and briefings) to help them to take local action in support of the strategy.
Offered networking opportunities and peer support for mental health champions, including an annual meeting and through use of electronic media.
Be recognised and acknowledged publicly. 2.8 It is important for Members to note that tackling mental health issues has been one of the priorities the Council has been focusing on over the last few years, both directly and indirectly through factors that impact on mental health issues. This has been due to the growing recognition about mental health issues and their impact on individuals, families, communities and the economy. Anecdotal information suggests a growing trend of mental health issues arising from a number of factors, including deprivation and inequalities, an older population, the impact of the economic downturn and many of the stresses and strains many individuals and families are facing.
2.9 Good mental health is therefore important for strong and resilient communities and a thriving economy. Identifying and tackling issues early, when they begin (through life transitions, due to adversity, or starting during adolescence), is vital to prevent issues from escalating where their impact can often be significant and costly.
3. Proposals for Council
3.1 The Motion presented to Council in December 2013 resolved to sign this Mental Health Challenge, subject to the resource implications being considered along with any issues of duplication. Appendix one outlines current activity against each of the 10 criteria and any changes needed as a result of signing the pledge. 3.2 It is important for Members to be aware of the range of work that is being carried out currently to tackle mental health and the causes of mental health. This has been through a combination of work including:
Funding work to tackle mental health through grants and commissioning (e.g. an emotional wellbeing pilot for young people, through the Health and Wellbeing Partnership);
The direct delivery of services to identify, tackle and signpost mental health issues (e.g. the Wellbeing Programme and Think Family);
Identifying issues and providing early help to signpost individuals to services appropriate to their needs (e.g. the Council’s safeguarding work);
The Council’s influencing role by identifying gaps in services and trends and influencing the County’s commissioning agenda (e.g. identifying gaps in early help provision for those with mental health issues); Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 10 6 February 2014 271 Leading and contributing to partnerships that work to address mental health (e.g. the Adur and Worthing Health and Wellbeing Partnership);
Trying and testing new innovations to tackle mental health issues (e.g. working with Time to Talk to develop a pilot programme for employers of those with mental health conditions); and
Working within communities to tackle the issues that can lead to or exacerbate mental health issues (e.g. Think Family Neighbourhoods). 3.3 A joint Adur District Council and Worthing Borough Council Public Health Plan is being developed which will bring together the collective action of the Councils on health, including mental health. 3.4 Signing the pledge will mean, in most cases, formalising our activity in this Public Health Plan with relatively minor changes. In some cases it will require more focus or some additional work, e.g. the creation of a Health Impact Assessment, training for Officers and the lead Member, and linking up better with WSCC Public Health on emotional wellbeing work in schools. However, given the importance of mental health issues locally, this pledge will add value to our health and wellbeing programme and put our Council in a better position to be able to effectively tackle mental health issues. 3.5 The issue of duplication has been considered and is an ongoing focus for our work. Officers will continue to work in partnership with others to ensure duplication does not happen and that collective resources are best used in and for our communities. 3.6 Given this, Members are asked to consider signing up to this pledge as set out in paragraphs 2.5 and 2.6. Other benefits are also notable as a result of signing up, including those outlined above (paragraph 2.7) and the resulting reputational benefits by demonstrating positive action on mental health.
4.0 Legal
4.1 Section 1 Localism Act 2011 provides the Local Authority with the power to do anything that individuals generally may do, providing no other legislation exists to prevent it. This provision confers power upon the Local Authority to do it in any way whatsoever, including power to do it anywhere in the UK or elsewhere, for a commercial purpose, or without charge, and for the benefit of the Authority, its area or persons resident, or not.
4.2 Some of the commitments of the Mental Health Challenge as set out at Appendix 1 to the report, including tackling discrimination on the grounds of mental health in our community and working to reduce inequalities in mental health in the community, support the Council’s existing obligations under the Equalities Act.
5.0 Financial implications
5.1 There are no direct budget implications with regard to signing up to this pledge. There is however the resource of Officer and Member time needed in order to deliver the added areas identified (Appendix one). However this pledge does have good tangible benefits in terms of mental health action alongside enhancing the
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 10 6 February 2014 272 Council’s reputation. It also fits with the new vision of Catching the Wave and does not require additional resources.
6.0 Recommendation
6.1 The Joint Strategic Committee is recommended to:
i) note the contents of the report and consider the Local Authorities Mental Health Challenge, the criteria for the pledge and the implications on resources and duplication of services.
ii) recommend to Worthing Borough Council that Worthing Borough Council signs up to the Local Authorities Mental Health Challenge.
Local Government Act 1972 Background Papers: http://www.mentalhealthchallenge.org.uk/motion/
Contact Officer:
Tina Favier Communities Team Manager Portland House 01273 263293 [email protected]
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 10 6 February 2014 273 Schedule of Other Matters
1.0 Council Priority
1.1 Corporate priority 2) “Work more closely with and commission our communities, the voluntary sector, public organisations, business and commercial sectors”
2.0 Specific Action Plans
2.1 (c) Deliver interventions that improve the health of our communities.
3.0 Sustainability Issues
3.1 Sustainability issues have been considered in the report.
4.0 Equality Issues
4.1 This proposal will have a positive impact on some sections of the community including those that are socially disadvantaged.
5.0 Community Safety Issues (Section 17)
5.1 There are considerable benefits to community safety in terms of working with those with mental health issues.
6.0 Human Rights Issues
6.1 Matter considered and no issues identified.
7.0 Reputation
7.1 Project will positively raise the profile of Worthing Council in the local community.
8.0 Consultations
8.1 Consultation will be carried out with communities and partners throughout the programme.
9.0 Risk Assessment
9.1 Risk assessment to be developed in partnership.
10.0 Health & Safety Issues
10.1 None identified
11.0 Procurement Strategy
11.1 Matter considered and no issues identified.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 10 6 February 2014 274 12.0 Partnership Working
12.1 Partnership working strengthened between Worthing Council, WS Public Health, voluntary sector partners and communities.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 10 6 February 2014 275 JSC Report 6 February 2014
Appendix 1
Mental Health Challenge Current activity in Worthing Any change arising from criteria signing this pledge? 1 Appoint an elected member as The Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing Potential training on mental health ‘mental health champion’ across the has the portfolio for public health issues, issues for the Member. council including mental health. This involves being a member of the Adur and Worthing Health and In addition, it is stated that this role Wellbeing Partnership (an external group) and might include raising awareness of the Adur and Worthing Health Working Group mental health issues, including the (an internal Council group). impact of stigma and discrimination, across the full range of the authority’s work and with other elected members. It can also link to the work of the OSC and local Health and Wellbeing Board.
2 Identify a ‘lead officer’ for mental The lead officer for health is the Strategic This role could be formalised better health to link in with colleagues Director (JM). This Officer chairs the Adur and in terms of mental health issues. across the council. Worthing Health and Wellbeing Partnership and This may involve training, reading the Internal Health Working Group. and responding to briefings sent as part of signing up to this. As part of this role and the changes being implemented as part of Catching the Wave, an However the reputational benefits Adur and Worthing Council’s Public Health Plan and the learning from this will have is in the process of being developed. Its a positive impact on the Councils in purpose is to develop a more coherent and the community. innovative approach to health across the
276 Mental Health Challenge Current activity in Worthing Any change arising from criteria signing this pledge? Councils, which will include mental health.
This will, for example, consider guidance for the workplace on how to support and manage those with mental health issues such as: http://www.hse.gov.uk/stress/pdfs/manage- mental-health.pdf, or
http://www.lse.ac.uk/intranet/LSEServices/healthAn dSafety/pdf/SHIFTpracticalGuideToManagingPeople WithMentalHealthProblems.pdf 3. Follow the implementation i) Services and commissioning The change could be about framework for the mental health ensuring that people with mental strategy where it is relevant to It is recognised that almost all areas of a local health issues are properly the council’s work and local authority’s responsibility have the potential to represented in engagement work needs contribute to good mental health and wellbeing, across all departments. including decisions about housing, planning, Key issues here include: transport, leisure and green spaces and other The development of Health Impact community services all directly affect mental Assessments and training for staff to i) Services and commissioning. health. ensure that all policy decisions account for their impact on health, Assessing how strategies, commissioning For Worthing this would link with the forthcoming including mental health. This could decisions and directly provided services Public Health Plan which aims to integrate better include the learning from pieces of support and improve mental health and the Councils’ work around health, including work commissioned, for example, in wellbeing. mental health. the North East to assess the impact of services on vulnerable groups. http://www.inukshukconsultancy.co m/?page_id=152
277 Mental Health Challenge Current activity in Worthing Any change arising from criteria signing this pledge? ii) Community engagement and co- production ii) Community engagement and co-design. This includes using a variety of engagement Involving the local community, including mechanisms beyond passive consultation those with mental health problems, their techniques, for example proactive outreach to families and carers, in the co-production of hard to reach groups and providing accessible service pathways and in service design. communication that clearly shows how people’s views and priorities have been taken into iii) Community budgets account.
Considered to improve the quality and A variety of work is carried out by the Council in efficiency of support offered to people with an attempt to engage with those that have multiple needs who have a mental health mental health issues, including the targeted problem. work of the Wellbeing Programme and Think Family in areas of deprivation and with disadvantaged groups and the Council’s safeguarding activity which is delivering work around early help.
The latest Think Family Neighbourhoods programme is focused on working in key neighbourhoods to improve community resilience by working with families to tackle local issues. Key to this programme is tackling many of the factors that can lead to or exacerbate mental health issues, including worklessness, anti-social behaviour, confidence and self
278 Mental Health Challenge Current activity in Worthing Any change arising from criteria signing this pledge? esteem.
iii) Community budgets
A Community Budget Pilot has been agreed in Worthing and Adur as part of the Think Family Neighbourhoods Programme.
4. Work to reduce inequalities in Tackling health inequalities is a key driver for all No change to work already planned. mental health in our community. of the work being delivered around health and The pledge would provide more of a wellbeing currently. This is delivered through formal framework for this work. targeted work in areas of deprivation and with disadvantaged groups. It is essential for neighbourhoods within Worthing given the inequalities that exist and also because of the demographics, i.e. an older population which is affected by dementia and social isolation.
Work is being developed with voluntary sector partners and volunteers to consider the development of dementia friendly businesses and places.
This work is supported by WSCC Public Health.
279 Mental Health Challenge Current activity in Worthing Any change arising from criteria signing this pledge? 5. Work with the NHS to integrate For Worthing this role is about working with No change to work already planned. health and social care support. West Sussex County Council and Coastal West The pledge would provide more of a Sussex Clinical Commissioning Group to help formal framework for this work. influence and support the agenda to integrate health and social care. This includes an influencing role with regard to mental health services and commissioning decisions, ensuring that local groups and people have been properly represented. For example, a piece of work was led by Worthing and Adur to identify gaps in provision for young people in terms of emotional wellbeing support. This has helped to influence the commissioning of mental health services for these groups.
6. Promote wellbeing and initiate This is a key role through the Wellbeing No change to work already planned. and support action on public Programme being delivered in the community, The pledge would provide more of a mental health. particularly in areas of deprivation and with formal framework for this work. disadvantaged groups. It also forms part of the Council’s wider programme to tackle safeguarding issues and “early help” and to support its own workforce. Messages used on the West Sussex Wellbeing Website can be adapted for local use https://www.westsussexwellbeing.org.uk/
280 Mental Health Challenge Current activity in Worthing Any change arising from criteria signing this pledge? 7. Tackle discrimination on the This is an area of work that has not been as well The change would be a more grounds of mental health in our developed formally in any systematic way. systematic approach to tackling community. There has been activity to address this including discrimination, which could form part for example work with MIND (green spaces), of the forthcoming Public Health work with a Green Gym for people with mental Plan. health issues and there is proposed work to address dementia, as mentioned above. 8. Encourage positive mental health The Council plays a key role in terms of tackling in our schools, colleges and mental health, directly in our own workforce Part of the ‘offer’ would be to workplaces. through our health and wellbeing role, and in continue this activity and to work other workforces through the Wellbeing more collaboratively on these Programme and Environmental Health, and emotional wellbeing programmes delivering programmes in key industrial estates. with WSCC Public Health in these settings in future Partnership work has also been developed recently with Time to Talk to develop a helpline for employers to support their employees better with regard to mental health.
With regard to schools and colleges the Council’s role is one of influencing and working in partnership. It also involves the direct delivery of programmes to tackle health and wellbeing issues with children and young people.
281 Mental Health Challenge Current activity in Worthing Any change arising from criteria signing this pledge? WSCC Public Health commissions programmes on: parenting (Solihull approach) for early years’ populations and peer mentoring in schools. We will be looking to expand the latter to cover FE colleges.
9. Proactively engage and listen to In addition to 3,ii above. No change to work already planned. people of all ages and The Councils work closely with services such as The pledge would provide more of a backgrounds about what they Mind and Time to Talk (an NHS service for formal framework for this work. need for better mental health those with mild to moderate mental health issues) and services that work with older people, some of whom have dementia. Part of this work is about ensuring the needs and issues of all these groups are identified, considered and addressed accordingly through the Adur and Worthing Health and Wellbeing Partnership. As outlined above, Officers are currently involved in the Emotional Wellbeing Programme for children and young people currently underway. Links to the Mental Health Needs Assessment will also be underway shortly. 10. Sign up to the Time to Change As per the pledge. To sign up to the pledge setting out pledge. how the Council meets the criteria and “offer”
Tina Favier
282 Joint Strategic Committee 6 February 2014 Agenda Item 11
Ward: All Council Wards
Options for the River Adur Internal Drainage District
Report by the Strategic Director (AG)
1.0 Summary
1.1 This report presents the business case for the dissolution of the existing River Adur Internal Drainage District (IDD) and seeks the Council’s views and direction for the future.
2.0 Background
2.1 The Environment Agency does not normally administer IDDs. Where it inherited them from predecessor bodies it has over time transferred or dissolved their management according to local circumstances. There remain 8 Environment Agency administered IDDs all located in the South East of England 3 of which are in West Sussex:
• The River Adur IDD (Adur Valley) • The River Arun IDD (Arun Valley) • The South West Sussex IDD (Manhood Penisular).
2.2 In June 2012 the Environment Agency Board approved a project to: “To divest the Environment Agency from its responsibilities regarding the running of the Environment Agency administered Internal Drainage Districts in West Sussex, East Sussex and Kent as swiftly as possible in an orderly manner”.
2.3 The Environment Agency is aiming for a successful transition to more locally accountable arrangements in these locations.
2.4 Since June 2012 the Environment Agency has been engaging with IDD stakeholders and Council Officers on Options for the future management of water levels in the districts. Options being considered are: - Option 1: Dissolve the existing IDD and communities or other suitable organisations set-up a new independent body to take over some or all of the interests of the existing IDD;
- Option 2: Dissolve the existing IDD so that watercourses in the IDD are managed as other ordinary watercourses
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 11 6 February 2014 283 - Option 3: Dissolve the existing IDD and communities and other interested parties work in partnership to establish working agreements without an IDB.
2.5 The history of the establishment of IDD’s in West Sussex is not well documented. However it is generally understood that the intent was to manage water levels in the lowland areas adjacent to rivers or the sea to maximise food production. From feedback from the Environment Agency it is clear that this role has not been actively managed for many years.
2.6 In response to stakeholders’ views a Steering Group was formed to represent stakeholders and make recommendations on the Options for all 3 IDDs in West Sussex. For clarity your Principal Engineer has represented the Councils on the Steering Group.
2.7 The Environment Agency provided the Steering Group with detailed information on the costs, benefits and risks of the existing and future Options for delivering the current level of service provided in the IDDs. Based on this evidence, the Steering Group recommends that the River Adur IDD be dissolved so that watercourses in the area become ordinary watercourses (Option 2).
3.0 The River Adur Internal Drainage District
3.1 The River Adur IDD covers an area of 1737 hectares throughout the lower and middle reaches of the River Adur catchment. The District is predominantly rural, with the main settlements being Upper Beeding & Bramber (see Appendix 1 for a map of the area). The IDD primarily lies within the administrative boundaries of Horsham District Council and Adur District Council, with a small area in the north east falling in Mid Sussex District Council. Reports to all the Councils affected based on this format are being presented at this time.
3.2 The watercourses within the IDD are closely linked to the Main River network which includes the River Adur. All IDD watercourses ultimately drain into the Adur which flows south, discharging into the sea at Shoreham. Part of the IDD between Shoreham and Bramber is within the South Downs National Park (SDNP). There are no significant environmental designations within the IDD.
3.3 There is a risk of flooding throughout the IDD, the majority of this is within rural locations and is generally confined to the floodplain. As most of the IDD falls within the Adur flood plain, when the Adur floods the IDD will often end up inundated, meaning land drainage cannot occur. Surface water and groundwater are additional sources of flood risk within the IDD and can contribute to increased water levels in ditches and standing water on fields.
4.0 Current Level of Service
4.1 A profile of the River Adur IDD and its assets is given in Table 1.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 11 6 February 2014 284
4.2 All assets are allocated a target condition grade based on their criticality. Routine, intermittent and capital maintenance are informed by a risk based inspections and condition regime of:
Visual inspection of all assets. Operational inspections of structures Public Safety Risk Assessments of structures which may pose a risk to the public.
4.3 Sluice keeping and routine maintenance may be undertaken during these inspections. Routine vegetation management is undertaken annually. The current maintenance ratio is 70% cut 30% retained based on Environment Agency maintenance standards and guidance from Natural England.
4.4 Intermittent maintenance may include weed screen clearance or repairs/minor refurbishments. No specific action is scheduled to manage water levels in the River Adur IDD
4.5 The Environment Agency contact centre telephone number is clearly displayed within the IDD and manned 24hours/day, 365 days per year. A Flood Incident Duty Officer will assess the risk and respond appropriately to any reported issues.
4.6 Table 2 summarises the results of most recent visual inspections. Overdue inspections will be completed by 31 March 2014.
4.7 The number of consents requested/issued has been minimal at 1-2 a year for IDD watercourses and 2-3 a year for ordinary watercourses within the IDD. Formal enforcement action is rare and time spent on informal enforcement/influencing is not sufficiently significant to be recorded.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 11 6 February 2014 285 Mid- Horsham Adur District Sussex IDD total District District Area Urban 0ha 21ha 0ha 21ha Rural 222ha 1384ha 110ha 1716ha Total 222ha 1405ha 110ha 1737ha Watercourses Main River 3.8km 52km 11km 66.8km IDD (OWC maintained by 3.5km 46.1km <0.1km 49.7km IDB) OWC (not maintained by 9km 70.1km 7.2km 86.2km IDD) Total 16.3km 168.2km 18.2km 202.7km IDD Assets
Maintained Pumping
stations 1 3 0 4 Sluices and water control 2 22 0 24 structures Culverts 0.1kms 0.4kms <0.1kms 0.6kms Watercourses 3.4kms 45.7kms 0kms 49.1kms Raised
embankments 0kms 0kms 0kms 0.0kms
Sites of Designated SPAs/SACs Environmental 0 0 0 0 Interest RAMSAR 0 0 0 0 SSSI 0 0 0 0 Local Wildlife
Sites (LWS) 1 2 0 3
Table 1 Profile of the River Adur IDD
% assets inspected Latest inspection Number of assets % of total assets at or above target date inspected inspected condition 2011 38 9% 53% 2010 185 43% 39% 2008 66 15% 45% 2006 96 23% 96% 2005 42 10% 100% Total 427 100% 61%
Table 2 Summary of most recent inspections and condition
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 11 6 February 2014 286 4.8 Total annual costs of the above operations in the River Adur IDD vary year on year but are around £80k. A breakdown of costs (for 2012/13) is shown in Table 3 below. These costs are determined by the Environment Agency’s operational costs (approximately £26/hr including staff, plant and materials) and not necessarily indicative of how much it would cost to procure the services independently.
Horsham Adur District Mid-Sussex Total District District
£k £k £K £k Routine maintenance/vegetation 2.6 27.2 0 29.8 management Intermittent maintenance 0 13.7 0 13.7 Pumping stations routine 1.5 3.3 0 4.8 Pumping stations intermittent 1.0 4.4 0 5.4 Pumping stations replacement 1.2 5.4 0 6.6 Operational inspections and water level management 1.8 16.2 0 18.0
OPUS inspections and works arising <0.1 2.4 0 2.5 Total 4.5 76.3 0 80.8
Table 3 – Summary of costs of operations
4.9 The IDD pays an annual precept of approximately £7,300 to the Environment Agency as a contribution to work on Main River from which the IDD benefits. This includes routine maintenance of conveyance on Main River.
4.10 The benefits of the current works and operation of the IDDs have been assessed using a toolkit developed by Department for Environment and Rural Affairs( Defra) (RPA et al (2013): Internal Drainage Board Beneficiaries and Performance Indicators, FD2659 for Defra/Environment Agency: Benefits Assessment Toolkit, May 2013). The approximate net benefits of the work of the IDD is c £20,000 pa. See Table 4. Order of magnitude Benefits Beneficiaries of benefits* Reducing the risk of flooding to 42 C £15,000 pa Local residents residential properties (of which 29 are residential mobile homes) mainly around Beeding and 2 residential properties outside the IDD
Reducing the risk of flooding to 3 C £7.500 pa Local businesses business properties within the IDD Local authorities
Enabling 23ha of land on the west bank of C £1000 pa Farmers/landowners the River Adur from the A27 to the Steyning By-pass to be managed for cattle and crops, rather than purely for cattle.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 11 6 February 2014 287 Supporting 475ha of locally designated C £2000 pa Local residents sites Farmers Local authorities Wider society
Recreation and tourism C £1000 pa Local residents Wider society
Carbon sequestration - £7000pa Wider society
Total C £20,000 pa
*Benefits are annual benefits based on current values (ie not net present value).
Table 4 – Benefits and beneficiaries of current level of service
5.0 Delivery Options
5.1 Having considered stakeholders’ views, including the advice of Association of Drainage Authorities (ADA), the Steering Group investigated the business case for:
Option 1 – River Adur IDD continuing to be managed as a single independent IDD, and Option 1a – All 3 IDDs in West Sussex, including the River Adur IDD, amalgamating into one West Sussex IDD (see Table 5); Option 1b - All 3 IDDs in West Sussex, including the River Adur IDD, operating as a consortium of independent IDDs. Option 2 - Dissolve the existing IDD so that watercourses in the IDD become ordinary watercourses.
IDD total Area Urban 765ha Rural 9281ha Total 10,046ha Watercourses Main River 261kms IDD (OWC maintained by 158kms IDB) OWC (not maintained by 368kms IDD) Total 787kms Assets Maintained Pumping stations 7 Sluices and water 65 control structures watercourses 153.6kms Culverts 4.9kms Sites of Designated SPAs/SACs 4 Environmental Interest RAMSAR 3 SSSI 6 Local Wildlife Sites 7 (LWS)
Table 5 Profile of a single West Sussex IDD incorporating the 3 existing IDDs
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 11 6 February 2014 288 6.0 Costs of delivery Options and how they will be met
6.1 Whilst the costs of the works and operations may be different for each of the Options, the variation between Options is not expected to be as significant as that due to overheads, in particular those associated with the administration of any IDD. Therefore in order to facilitate comparison of the costs of the Options, the Environment Agency works costs detailed above have been used. Irrespective of who acts as IDB, future costs may change with changes in Main River and coastal defence strategies, climate change etc.
6.2 Based on a Defra study and ADA advice, the analysis of costs assumes administrative costs for an independent IDD (Option 1) to be 22.5%, an amalgamated West Sussex IDD (Option 1a) to be 20% and a consortia of West Sussex IDDs (Option 1b) to be 20%.
6.3 Section 36 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 determines that the expenses of an IDB shall be met by: Drainage rates collected from agricultural land and buildings within the Internal Drainage District; Special levies issued on District and Unitary Authorities within the Internal Drainage District; Contributions from the Environment Agency (see Higher Level Water Contributions).
6.4 If there is no IDD/IDB, there would be no facility to raise income through drainage rates and special levies or a Higher Land contribution. If landowners and local authorities no longer have to make a payment to an IDB they will however, be able to retain the sum that they currently pay to the IDB and can spend it where they wish, including funding the service delivery directly.
6.5 The costs of the options for delivering the current level of service within the River Adur IDD to local authorities and IDD ratepayers are summarised in Table 6 along with the benefits of the current level of service.
Drainage Adur DC Horsham DC EA HLWC Total rates payers Costs pa: Current £19,000 £41,000 £24,000 £18,000 £102,000 Option 1 £21,500 £46,000 £27,000 £18,000 £112.500 Option 1a £20,000 £43,000 £25,000 £18,000 £106,000 Option 1b £20,500 £44,500 £26,000 £18,000 £109,000 Option 2 £4,500 £76,300 £0 £0 £80,800
Order of magnitude of benefits of current £7000 £16,000 £1000 - £24,000 level of service pa Note there are no costs or benefits to Mid-Sussex DC
Table 6 Costs to local authorities and drainage rate payers of delivering current level of service in River Adur IDD
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 11 6 February 2014 289 6.6 Table 7 summarises the total costs of the options for delivering the current level of service within all 3 IDDs in West Sussex to local authorities and IDD ratepayers.
Based on EA Option Option 1 Option 1a Option 1b administered IDDs 2**
£k £k £k £k £k
Chichester DC 47,900 55,800 52,400 54,000 37,000
Arun DC 179,600 207,700 194,400 200,900 174,700
Adur DC 19,000 21,400 19,800 20,600 6,300
Horsham DC 42,000 47,200 43,900 45,500 55,700
Drainage rates 57,700 65,900 61,500 63,700 0 * Corrected to take account of use of balances ** assuming local authorities fully fund the works directly (not through special levy
Table 7 Costs to local authorities and drainage rate payers of delivering current level of service in all 3 IDDs in West Sussex
Tables 8 and 9 show the key strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats afforded by Options 1, 1a and 1b and Options 2 and 3 respectively.
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
Statutory body with statutory benefits do not justify set-up and on-going powers and duties costs Can raise drainage rates, special LA S provide majority of funding levies and HLWC Long-term commitment to fund and provide Local control and accountability board membership through board Time consuming process to establish Powers and duties for ordinary Responsibilities for water level management watercourses in the district sit within shared by an additional Risk Management 1 Risk Management Authority Authority (Takes statutory duties wrt Additional bureaucracy consenting from LLFA Takes on liability for future costs of maintenance/replacement of assets, particularly pumping stations What most drainage ratepayers want
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
Amalgamate to reduce Misalignment between those who benefits administrative burden (Option 1a) and those who pay Work in consortium with other IDDs Failure to establish new IDD within
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 11 6 February 2014 290 to share skills and resources and EA/DEFRA timescales achieve economies of scale costs of putting in place (Option 1b) unable to secure board members Cheaper maintenance unable to agree boundaries/rates Differential rating order to ensure Cuts to LA funding bringing more pressure beneficiaries pay on other services Agree with EA for EA to continue to Amalgamations reduce localism undertake work and support skills Objections raised by RSPB, other key stakeholders during statutory process transfer EA withdraw maintenance from main river EA resource and ADA to support (Adur Strategy review) establishing a new IDD
Table 8 Options 1, 1a and 1b – Key strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
Local choice and accountability No power to raise drainage rates, special through local authority elected levies or HLWC members Vulnerable to cuts in local authority funding Local authorities retain special levy Split of powers between LLFA and districts funding lack of skills and capacity in la No external administration and associated costs Flexible to current funding priorities Those who benefit pay No drainage rates to be collected Simple and low cost to put in place No additional Risk Management Authority
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
Local authorities can retain special Current level of service and benefits will not levy funding to spend on more cost be delivered beneficial local priorities Loss of EA knowledge and skills to district Riparian landowners retain drainage rates and have duties and powers to Failure to build skills/capacity undertake works on their own land Liability for future costs of Agree with EA for EA to continue to maintenance/replacement of assets, particularly pumping stations undertake work through Public Not supported by RSPB, other key Sector Co-operative Arrangements stakeholders - objections raised during in short term to support skills statutory process transfer Scope for local agreements between ratepayers and other stakeholders Local authorities to work with other Risk Management Authority to deliver work through Public Sector Co-operative Arrangements
Table 9 Options 2/3 – Key strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 11 6 February 2014 291
7.0 Views of Agricultural drainage ratepayers
7.1 In October 2012, all agricultural drainage ratepayers were asked their preference in terms of Options, 1, 2 and 3. The River Adur IDD had the strongest response of all three West Sussex IDDs, with 15% (Figure 2) of all ratepayers polled responding. These responders represented 32% (figure 3) of the total monetary value of rates paid on the River Adur.
7.2 The preference of those who responded are shown in terms of number of ratepayers and the value of rates they pay are shown in Figures 1 and 2. However, this view was expressed before the evidence of the benefits of the IDD was compiled.
Figure 1 Expressed Option preferences of those who responded as a percentage of total number of responses
Figure 2 Expressed Option preferences of those who responded as a percentage of value of rates paid Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 11 6 February 2014 292 8.0 Options appraisal
8.1 The key issue for the River Adur IDD is that the total costs of the current level of service are greater than the total benefits for the current and all alternative future delivery options (Table 6).
8.2 For current arrangements, the benefit cost ratio for both Horsham and Adur District Councils is in the region of 0.4. For agricultural landowners it is 0.04. This reduces further for Options 1,1a and 1b, ie under a new IDB. (The additional administrative costs of independent IDDs compared to EA administered IDDs may be offset by cheaper operational costs. http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/flooding/ who/idbreview.htm
8.3 Delivering the service through the local authorities and riparian landowners would reduce administrative costs. However, loss of drainage rates and the Higher Land Water Contribution more than offsets the savings in administration costs. Assuming local authorities undertake the works currently undertaken by the IDB with no income from agricultural landowners, delivering the current level of service under Option 2 would offer a benefit cost ratio of 1.5 for Adur DC, 0.2 for Horsham DC, ie Horsham DC would be subsidising Adur DC. Drainage ratepayers would benefit slightly for no cost. The costs to the local authorities could be reduced if the landowners either undertook the work themselves or paid the local authority to do it. This would follow the principle of those who benefit pay.
8.4 Nevertheless, however the costs of delivering the level of service are distributed, fundamentally they exceed the benefits. An alternative level of service should be identified which delivers cost benefits and is paid for by the beneficiaries.
8.5 Whilst it would be possible for a new IDD to deliver an alternative and potentially more cost effective level of service, alternative configurations of IDDs (Options 1, 1a or 1b) are likely to cost more to administer than the existing IDD and would be costly to establish (c £50k). A Differential Rating Order would be required to ensure that those who benefit pay.
8.6 If there is no IDD (Option 2), there is the opportunity for local authorities to retain the Special Levy funding and to target funds to local priorities. Whilst there would be no opportunity to raise a contribution through drainage rates, if landowners were to benefit from local authority works they could be asked to make a contribution as cash or in kind. There would also be a loss of the contribution from the Environment Agency for HLWC.
8.7 The key benefit of Option 2 is that local authorities would have greater control on how their money is spent if it is retained within the authorities. There is the opportunity to determine the most cost beneficial level of service. The risks associated with Option 2 and potential mitigation action are summarised in Table 10.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 11 6 February 2014 293
Risks of Option 2 Potential mitigation action Increase in costs to local authorities The additional costs to the local authorities due to loss of drainage rates and would be reduced if the landowners either the Higher Land Water Contribution undertook the work themselves or paid the more than offsetting the savings in local authority to do it. This would follow the administration costs. principle of those who benefit pay
Increased flood risk to properties District councils to consider undertaking and waterlogging of agricultural works themselves on a risk basis (including land: Annington pumping station) and WSCC to 4 watercourses (3kms) which use enforcement. may cause flood risk to 20 Encourage farmers to undertake works for properties in Horsham District land drainage
Annington pumping station which may cause flood risk to properties in Horsham and waterlogging of agricultural land 1 watercourse which may affect water abstraction in Adur District 2 watercourses which may cause waterlogging of agricultural land in Horsham District 1 watercourse which may cause waterlogging of agricultural land in Adur District
Future liabilities for 3 further Offer landowners opportunity to operate 3 pumping stations. other pumping stations/ decommission
Not preferred option of ratepayers Joint engagement strategy with all parties on Steering Group. Explain lack of benefits.
Table 10 Risks and potential mitigation of Option 2
9.0 Legal
9.1 Under Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, the Council has the power to do anything to facilitate or which is conducive or incidental to the discharge of any of their functions.
9.2 Alternatively s1 of the Localism Act 2011 empowers the Council to do anything an individual can do apart from that which his specifically prohibited by pre-existing legislation
9.3 s1 Local Government (Contracts) Act 1997 confers power on the local authority to enter into a contract for the provision of making available of assets or services for the purposes of, or in connection with, the discharge of the function by the local authority
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 11 6 February 2014 294 10.0 Financial implications
10.1 Current advice is that the EA will dissolve the IDD on 31st March 2014 but that Revenue Support Grant with continue for a further 5 years until 2019 when it will cease. Confirmation of this extension has yet to be confirmed by Defra but if this is the case the ADC contribution could be used to fund works and/or a member of staff to work with WSCC and local landowners as they adjust to the extensive network or waterways and ditches that will become ordinary watercourses.
10.2 No financial implications are being reported at this time as dependent upon the recommendations of the Committee a more detailed report on this will follow to the next cycle.
10.3 Under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 the County Council has become the Lead Local Flood Authority. However, significant contributions (both in funding and wider resources) will need to be forthcoming from district and Borough Councils (as well as other parties) for flood risk to be successfully managed in West Sussex.
11.0 Recommendation
11.1 The Committee are asked to instruct the Officers which option (Option 1, 1a, 1b or 2) they would prefer to be pursued so that a further report to the next cycle can be prepared to highlight the financial and resource impacts.
Local Government Act 1972 Background Papers:
Agenda Items 6 and 7 of this agenda Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee recent flooding and legislation and organisational changes 13th September 2012 Worthing Cabinet – Surface Water Management Plan 8th March 2010 Lessons Learned from the 2007 floods – Sir Michael Pitt Floods and Water Management Act 2010 Flood Risk Regulations 2009 West Sussex Preliminary Flood Risk assessment – May 2011 Managing Coastal Erosion Risk – a new Framework for Service Delivery JOS 24th January 2008
Contact Officer:
Bryan Curtis Principal Engineer Town Hall 01903 221372 [email protected]
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 11 6 February 2014 295 Schedule of Other Matters
1.0 Council Priority
1.1 This is not currently one of the Councils priorities.
2.0 Specific Action Plans
2.1 Matter considered and no issues identified.
3.0 Sustainability Issues
3.1 Matter considered and no issues identified.
4.0 Equality Issues
4.1 Matter considered and no issues identified.
5.0 Community Safety Issues (Section 17)
5.1 Matter considered and no issues identified.
6.0 Human Rights Issues
6.1 Matter considered and no issues identified.
7.0 Reputation
7.1 Is the proposal likely to have an impact on the reputation of the Council(s) – Yes.
8.0 Consultations
8.1 Details of the stakeholder consultation is reported as paras
9.0 Risk Assessment
9.1 Matter considered and no issues identified.
10.0 Health & Safety Issues
10.1 Matter considered and no issues identified.
11.0 Procurement Strategy
11.1 No procurement required.
12.0 Partnership Working
12.1 The development of the options and hence direction for the future has been developed in partnership with WSCC, EA and All other district and Borough Councils in West Sussex. It is hoped that whatever option is chosen this partnership approach will be improved and further forged to maximise the strengths and
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 11 6 February 2014 296 weaknesses and hence overall efficiency of the whole process and delivery in the future.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 11 6 February 2014 297 APPENDIX 1 The River Adur Internal Drainage District and its assets
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 11 6 February 2014 298
Joint Strategic Committee 6 February 2014 Agenda Item 12
Ward: All Adur Wards
Adur Homes Decent Homes Work Programme 2014/15
Report by Head of Adur Homes
1.0 Summary The report details: 1.1 An outline of the requirements of the Governments Decency Standards legislation. 1.2 Adur Homes Decent Home strategy and the 2014/15 Capital programme categories for the housing stock. 1.3 The budget allocations to categories of work within the programme (Appendix C)
2.0 Background 2.1 A decent home is one which is weather tight, warm and has modern facilities. It is defined by various Government set criteria in order to achieve a common decency benchmark ensuring all social landlords work to the same goal.
2.2 A Decent Home must: 1) have no major failures under the Housing Health & Safety Rating System (HHSRS) 2) be in reasonable state of repair. 3) have reasonably modern facilities and services. 4) have a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.
2.3 The criteria give rise to the following classifications: • A Decent Home - not requiring work. • A Non Decent Home - failing one or more criteria, therefore requiring work. • A Potentially non-decent home - currently meets the standard but likely to become non-decent in the short term.
2.4 Further detail on Decency Standard legislation and Adur Homes Strategy was considered and accepted by Committee on 28th February 2013 (Agenda item 10)
2.5 During 2013, West Sussex County Council (WSCC) approached Adur Homes with regard to Sussex Energy Saving Partnership (SESP) initiatives supported by their consultants ‘E3’ suggesting possible Energy Company Obligation (ECO) funding may become available for energy efficiency measures to Adur Homes properties.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 12 6 February 2014 299 This potential financial support was directed to energy related projects e.g. Supplementary roof void loft insulation Gas Central heating/fuel switching Insulated External wall cladding to difficult to treat external walls, including the possibility of over cladding elevations with failing pointing, following any necessary structural repair. Flat roof insulation. Photo Voltaics A number of site inspections were carried out to familiarise the consultant with the Councils stock and it potential for energy related work. The prospect of supporting finance led to the temporary suspension of some of the projects programmed for 2013/14. Later developments saw WSCC appoint Carillion plc as delivery partner in October 2013, generally with the same criteria and purpose as before.
2.6 WSCC appointment of Carillion plc as a Delivery Partner In October 2013 West Sussex County Council (WSCC), which led the procurement for the Sussex Energy Saving Partnership (SESP), selected multi-national company Carillion as its Delivery Partner for the next 10 years to provide energy saving initiatives throughout Sussex. WSCC’s aim is to deliver energy saving measures across East and West Sussex and Brighton & Hove City council in up to 680,000 households over the next 25 years, starting with 17,000 homes by 2017 and intends launching initial schemes in the early part of 2014. As well as saving money on energy costs this project could offer many jobs across the county with opportunities for young people in apprenticeships and promises real benefit for the environment, for residents and for the economy. Carillion has managed national schemes for the alleviation of fuel poverty in other authority schemes - like the SESP these schemes work with communities to help them access grants, Green Deal loans and other funding to improve their homes. A large-scale programme of energy saving refurbishments in Sussex is a key element of a WSCC twenty year strategic plan of economic and social regeneration of Sussex, improving the local economy, achieving a low carbon economy, driving through sustainability for the long term and tackling fuel poverty. In is anticipated that a further report on the SESP will be brought to the Committee in the current financial year.
3.0 Capital Programme Proposals 2014-2015
3.1 The Capital programme categories and priorities have been compiled from current stock condition survey information, maintenance records, ‘in house’ technical knowledge and in some instances residents requests, with the objective to meet and maintain Decent Homes standards.
3.2 Staff resources and the level of Capital finance available in future years will determine the progress through the programme and the level of the Decency Standard achieved throughout the stock.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 12 6 February 2014 300 3.3 Given the age of the data collected in previous stock condition surveys new surveys of building components are planned commencing 2014/15. This will provide new information that may restructure the long term work programmes. (item 4.19)
3.4 Following introductory meetings and a general district tour of housing stock WSCC and their Delivery Partner Carillion (as 2.6 above) have expressed strong interest in support of energy related elements of the AHS work programme and future aspirations:
Insulation to flat roofs. Insulation to difficult to treat external walls, over cladding poor wall. surfaces or those requiring repointing. Installation of Gas Central Heating & Gas infrastructure. Installation of Photo voltaic systems Other energy related technologies/opportunities.
Whilst it is early in the negotiations & discussion it is hoped that SESP & ECO funding opportunities will become available in support of the above in consultation with the AHS Surveying Section and the Joint Council’s Energy and Sustainability Manager.
4.0 Capital Programme Work Categories 2014-2015
For budget allocations for each category of work see Appendix C
4.1 Adaptations for tenants with disabilities This element of the capital programme is demand led and therefore no programme for work can be compiled.
Adaptations represent an ongoing commitment to improve access and facilities in Council homes to meet specific needs of individuals with disabilities. Work being carried out at the request of W.S.C.C. Occupational Therapists or Medical Practitioners. Generally the work is carried out to Disabled Facility Grant mandatory criteria and in accordance with Adur Homes Service’s Adaptation policy & guidelines which are currently under review.
Such work includes: revision of bathrooms. Installation of level access or over-bath showers. improved kitchen layouts. provision of ramped access, widening of doorways. installation of stair lifts in homes. Installation of central heating (in specific circumstances). Providing additional space/accommodation (in specific circumstances). Other works in consultation Occupational therapists.
4.2 Recovering of flat roofs and associated work Continuation of an existing programme which re-covers failing roofs, or those reaching the end of their designed life. Consideration is also given to improving insulation values if appropriate.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 12 6 February 2014 301 4.3 Re-pointing & structural work Problems are being encountered with poor and failing pointing in a growing number of locations leading to the possibility of water penetration into homes.
Re-pointing can be considered essential work under the Decency Standards in order to maintain the structure and keep buildings watertight and habitable.
Re-pointing may not necessarily be required to all elevations or walls of each building. Replacement of other failing structural elements such as lintols, wall ties, eroding bricks & concrete repairs will also be carried out within this category.
4.4 Decent Homes Kitchen & Bathroom refurbishment (Current contract) Ongoing programme
4.4.1 Previous Committees have already recognised the need to continue the kitchen and bathroom refurbishment programme by approving funds from 2003 onwards. Whilst it might be considered desirable to carry out a full kitchen and bathroom refurbishment programme throughout the stock it is has never been viable given the financial constraints imposed from the outset. Annual finance available will dictate progress through the programme.
The programme therefore focuses on the condition & suitability of kitchen facilities and bathrooms in homes. Some properties already have modern style kitchens or bathrooms by way of previous routine maintenance, refurbishment work or tenant improvements and therefore may only require minor repair and upgrading works to bring them to standard.
Surveys are undertaken in each property as the programme progresses in order to establish the condition and age of facilities and if work is required to bring the property to Decency Standard. Should it become apparent that individual properties outside of the programmed year require earlier consideration they are brought forward in the programme.
Kitchens • full refurbishment only taking place where existing facilities are inadequate and/or greater than 20 years old with an assessed life of less than 6 years remaining. Otherwise kitchens will generally be repaired with minor improvements being carried out: this may include supplementary units and work surfaces in order to improve the kitchen working area.
Should full refurbishment be required, kitchen cabinetry & facilities will be installed in accordance with the Councils approved design guidelines. The guideline takes into account the design occupancy of the home, but may be constrained by size, shape or floor area available.
Main Bathroom & WC • full refurbishment of facilities only if life is assessed to be less than 6 years, or two or more amenities (bath, basin, WC) require replacement.
• Otherwise bathrooms will generally be repaired with minor improvement being carried out e.g. replacing of individual parts of bathroom suites, taps etc.
In all situations residents will be given the option of over bath showers if not previously installed.
4.4.2 A number of homes in the programme were last refurbished in late 1990’s, or have had sufficient work undertaken whilst void or during routine maintenance. Therefore Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 12 6 February 2014 302 these facilities are considered modern, unless they fail in ‘State of Repair’ or other ‘Modern Facility’ categories.
Each home will be individually assessed under the decent homes criteria described earlier, inclusion in the programme does not guarantee that kitchens &/or Bathrooms will be refurbished.
Where a ‘right to buy’ application is in place the property will be excluded from the programme in accordance with legislation & Adur Homes Policy.
4.4.3 The Modern Facilities criteria requires that homes must not be lacking in three or more of six categories, therefore it is possible to refurbish only a kitchen or a bathroom in a property and still reach Decent homes status if the other facility is outdated, but in good repair.
As finance remains restricted, full refurbishment is not sustainable. It is possible to achieve, or maintain decency standards for modern facilities for finite periods and progress more rapidly through the remaining programme:
i) by undertaking the improvement of only one of the facilities, as long as the other meets the ‘State of repair’ criteria. Tenants will be given the option to choose between kitchen & bathroom refurbishment if both are old. Should they opt for kitchen refurbishment it is recommended that they be offered an over bath shower, as it has been a standard practice to give tenants the option, on grounds of: convenience and sustainability of water resources.
ii) on inspection, if one facility is found to be less than the age criteria, then there will be no need to refurbish the other in order to achieve decency for a period of time. In which case no work will be necessary, other than to satisfy the ‘State of Repair’ requirements.
Such situations might arise because of: refurbishment work undertaken (e.g. during the 1990’s) major repairs undertaken during routine maintenance or when void tenant improvement of a facility an adaptation for a tenant with disabilities that refurbish, or replace one or both of the facilities. Any additional facility provided for a disabled residents sole use will not be included within the assessment criteria.
e.g. a separate shower area & WC for the disabled residents sole use, will still require the family bathroom to be considered for refurbishment or repair.
4.4.4 The above definitive measures would make the home decent in accordance with the legislation and has been approved by Committee at previous meetings.
4.4.5 The current Decent Homes Kitchen & Bathroom refurbishment work is being undertaken by P H Beck Ltd on a two year contract, extendable by one year subject to performance and mutual agreement. P H Beck commenced the District wide contract in August 2013, and after an initial settling in period they have given assurance that they can undertake work to the value of the recommended 2014/15 budget allocation.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 12 6 February 2014 303 4.5 Environmental Improvements This general capital works programme encompasses a range of major repair items or improvements to external communal areas & facilities as part of the Decent Homes plus (supplementary considerations) e.g. • estate lighting • fencing, pathways • defensive planting & landscaping
As with most categories there is high demand for work and the current Capital allocation for future years will not satisfy the extensive list of work that has accrued. However, essential items will be considered for early attention.
4.6 Communal Way refurbishment Replacement of failing communal way floor coverings, Health & Safety upgrades, lighting, door entry/stairwell screen replacements. It is anticipated that the budget for this category will need to be increased in future years to allow the replacement of communal way windows & screens.
Major repair or replacement of the currently glazed rear common way to Manor Court is planned commencing 2014/15. Dependant on the extent of work required it may be necessary to phase work over a two year period
4.7 Recovering of pitched roofs and associated work Work includes the renewal of failing pitched roofs, including roof tiles, under-felt, fascias, soffits and rain water goods etc. - also reinforcement of roof timbers if found to be necessary. No programme is considered necessary at this stage & ad hoc replacement work is undertaken as needs arise.
4.8 Test & upgrade of electrical circuits Testing and improvement of electrical circuits to current electrical standards in homes& communal areas: including updating domestic installations for modern day use & demand: additional socket outlets, communal way circuits, lighting & fittings and where appropriate additional external lighting.
4.9 External Joinery & window replacement Programme for 2014/15 replacement of failing windows at Spring Gardens (currently timber & secondary double glazed) The Green, Southwick
Following the above, the replacement programme will be complete in Council homes. However, financial provision will need to be made in the future to replace old uPVC window frames installed in the 1980’s & 90’s that are reaching the end of their effective life.
The failure of old sealed double glazing units, now out of their guarantee period, will become an increasing problem and will require greater financial provision in future years. Failure of these glazing units results in loss of energy efficiency, and unsightly condensation between the glass panes that make up the sealed units.
The programme will also continue on a smaller scale to allow the replacement of any failing individual double glazed windows. The replacement of failing external timber doors with new thermally efficient doors and frames are also funded from this category.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 12 6 February 2014 304 4.10 Central Heating Installations (New installations only: choice of Gas Central Heating: if a gas supply is available, or Electric Night Storage heating) The programme is generally complete.
4.10.1 The budget allocation allows tenants previously declining an offer of central heating, but by change of circumstance now wish for full central heating to be fitted, or, for new incoming tenants, where the outgoing tenant previously refused the offer.
From 2013 onward fuel switching (change from electric heating to gas fired) will become a major focus, with potential financial support from Central Government and/or fuel providers and other funding and support streams becoming available.
4.10.2 The gas distribution company, Scotia Gas Networks (SGN) have put forward proposals to install a gas main infrastructure to ‘all electric’ homes in the Test Road area of Sompting.
The location is identified as an IMD (Index of Multiple Deprivation) area which falls into the Local Neighbourhood Improvement Area (LNIA) of Peverel Ward.
The proposal would encompass approximately 200 homes, comprising approximately 111 Adur Homes properties and 80 private sector households.
A report detailing the SGN proposal for domestic gas supplies and the potential to install gas central heating into Council Homes is provided in Appendix B
4.11 Central Heating replacements (Ongoing commitment, existing installations)
i) Boilers, heating controls, gas fires or existing central heating systems nearing the end of their useful life are currently identified during annual gas servicing contract inspections. Any found to be failing or to be beyond economic repair are replaced.
The Council has no alternative but to replace failing boilers with the required new high efficiency condensing units as required by the Government.
ii) The replacement of old or failing electric night storage systems are also included within this category.
4.12 Replacement of door entry systems Replacement of failing door entry systems, and, if needed entrance doors/locking mechanisms throughout the district. In many cases spare parts to repair or upgrade systems are no longer available.
4.13 Upgrade / repair car park areas & garages (Rolling programme over approx 9 -10 years) Major repairs to garages, car park resurfacing work, miscellaneous improvements, lighting to HRA managed car parking areas and compounds etc. A number of car parking areas and garage compounds may provide suitable sites for the construction of new homes which will need to be taken into account when planning upgrade & repair work.
4.14 Digital aerial installation (information only, work programmed for 2015/16)
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 12 6 February 2014 305 All communal TV aerial systems in flats & Sheltered Accommodation have all been successfully upgraded or replaced to receive digital broadcasts. A number of Sheltered Accommodation sites have been basically upgraded to digital TV reception in the past. However, they will require the installation of full Integrated Reception Systems (IRS) with aerials and dishes for reception of satellite broadcasts. Should any of the basic upgrades, which rely on old distribution cables, fail prior to the 2015/16 works programme consideration will be given to bringing them forward into the 2014/15 financial year if it represents Value for Money to do so.
4.15 Fishersgate external & communal way refurbishment. (Current contract) Blocks included within the contract: o Old Mill Close o Laylands Court o Laylands Rd o Wyck Court o Laylands Rd
Work elements include: Re-pointing, structural repair, paving repair, redecoration & associated pre painting maintenance, & general repairs etc. The upgrading of fire doors, installation of emergency lighting and other measures as required to satisfy the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order
It is anticipated that Mears Group Ltd will complete the contract in March 2014, therefore little financial provision is required in 2014/15
4.16 Insulation upgrade & energy efficiency works The intention is to further increase levels of insulation to new standards or introduce other energy efficiency/environmentally related measures into resident’s homes. The work will initially be driven by the details and recommendations drawn either from Energy Performance Certificates (EPC’s) carried out as part of the Choice Based Lettings process, or as an integral part of the Central Heating programme.
4.17 Replacement smoke detectors (Current contract) The contract for the replacement of old smoke detectors with mains powered units is well advanced. The contractor, ‘Televex 97’ have made excellent progress throughout 2013, and the level of customer satisfaction has been very high.
It is expected that the contract will roll into 2014/15 because of a number of access difficulties. Only a small financial provision (£5,000) has been made in 2014/15 as slippage from the 2013/14 allocation should be sufficient to cover commitment.
4.18 Fire Safety Order work
The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (FSO) is in effect with the West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service (WSFRS) enforcing the legislation.
Finance is required to administer and continue a rolling programme to undertake new Fire Risk Assessments and upgrade all communal areas to bring properties to the standards required by the FSO and WSFRS.
During 2013 one part time FSO surveyor resigned his post in the AHS Surveying Section. As no suitably qualified internal resource was available within the Joint
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 12 6 February 2014 306 Councils two unsuccessful recruitment exercises and resultant interviews for the three day week post were undertaken.
In consultation with the Cabinet Member for Customer Services it has been agreed to procure a consultant to undertake the remaining Fire Safety Risk Assessments to housing stock communal areas funded from the savings made in the temporary suspension of the part time post.
As previously reported and agreed by Committee the work required in communal areas will be carried out on a rolling 3 to 4 year prioritised programme.
4.19 Property Condition Surveys Introduction of new condition surveys to replace information gathered during 2002- 2006 to inform & develop future strategy & budget planning for the Housing stock. 2015/16 programmes & budgets and those in future years may be adjusted dependant on the outcome & priorities identified in the surveys.
It is anticipated that this process will be undertaken by an external professional service.
4.20 Lift refurbishment Marsh House, (3 storey Sheltered Accommodation) Grange Court & Sea House (6 storey residential accommodation) Components to the above lifts are reaching the end of their useful life and require capital investment to improve systems for operational reliability, safety and compliance with Equality Act 2010. It has been noted that the lift facility at Grange Ct is in need of early consideration to ensure that the lift service is maintained Work includes: replacement controllers, drives, door operators and car refurbishment to current standards within the constraints of the original lift cars, motor rooms & shafts.
4.21 Sheltered Accommodation – Community alarm system (Information only, work programmed for 2015/16) The existing Community Alarm (Tenant to HSO/Call Centre communication/alert system) is nearing the end of its effective life and replacement components have become difficult to source. A new wireless system may be the most appropriate replacement.
Although full evaluation of equipment & technology has not been completed it is considered essential that the systems are replaced within the next two years.
5.0 Legal
5.1 The Council has powers pursuant to the Housing Act 1985 to provide housing, and may be subject to wide-ranging repair and maintenance provisions towards its tenants both at common law and statute..Under Section 151 of the Local Government Act 1972:- the Council has a duty to make arrangements for the proper administration of its financial affairs.
5.2 The Housing capital work programme is carried out in order to progress towards and maintain the Decent Homes legislation targets. This aims to provide a minimum standard of housing conditions for all those in public sector homes.
5.3 The Council has the power to recover costs from Leaseholders (those who have exercised the right to buy a flat are leaseholders, who have to pay service charges for services that continue to be received from the landlord, such as maintenance of
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 12 6 February 2014 307 lifts) in accordance with the Commonhold & Leasehold Reform Act 2002, under the terms and conditions set in individual leases and the Councils standard procedures and Policies.
6.0 Financial implications
6.1 The finance available for the Adur Homes Services, Capital Investment Programme was approved in reports to:
Joint Strategic Committee 3rd December 2013 (Agenda item No 6, Appendix 5 - Proposed Adur Homes Capital investment programme 2014/15 - 2016/17) ref: JSC/069/13-14 (b)
Council meeting 19th December 2013 (Agenda item 7B ii)
6.2 The proposed restructured budget is detailed in Appendix C which also takes into account slippage from the 2013/14 budget as previously agreed by Joint Strategic Committee on 7th November 2013.
7.0 Recommendations
The Joint Strategic Committee is recommended to:
i. Approve the Decent Home strategy and programme as detailed within the
report;
ii. Approve the proposed installation of a Gas infrastructure to the Test Road area
as set out in paragraph 4.10.2 and Appendix B;
iii. Approve the re-profiled capital budgets for 2014/15 as detailed in Appendix C.
Local Government Act 1972 Background Papers: rd Joint Strategic Committee 3 December 2013. (Agenda item No 6, Appendix 5 - Proposed Adur Homes Capital investment programme 2014/15 - 2016/17) ref: JSC/069/13-14 (b)
Council meeting 19th December 2013 (Agenda item 7B ii)
Joint Strategic Committee 28th February 2013 (Agenda item 10) (Decency Standard legislation, Adur Homes Strategy and 2013/14 programme)
Government Policy Statement ‘The Way Forward in Housing ‘ (2001)
DTLR ‘A Decent Home - definition and guidance for implementation’ (June 2006)
Contact Officer: Tim Ivamy Senior Building Surveyor 01273 263295 [email protected]
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 12 6 February 2014 308 Schedule of Other Matters Appendix A 1.0 Council Priority
The wide scope and impact of the housing capital investment programme provides a positive contribution within the main published priorities set by the Council: o Supporting and improving the local economy o Protecting front line services o Mixed economy of Partnership working o Ensuring value for money
2.0 Specific Action Plans
2.1 To meet Government set decency standards for Council housing and to maintain and improve the structure, fabric and facilities offered by the Councils’ housing stock as detailed in the report.
3.0 Sustainability Issues
3.1 Investment in housing makes a positive contribution to the Council’s Sustainable/ Environmental objectives of resource use, energy and waste. Ensuring that there is a supply of good quality, affordable social housing in the District to set criteria and standards.
4.0 Equality Issues
4.1 as 3.1 above 4.2 The programme includes a budget to provide facilities at home for tenants with disabilities, improving quality of life and access in and around homes and out into the community. Other aspects of access & equalities are considered at design stages of each contract or project.
5.0 Community Safety Issues (Section 17)
5.1 Consideration is given during design and preparation of projects to ensure that, where possible, the safety and security of homes and the surrounding environment are maintained or improved. Examples being: more secure windows & doors, improved estate lighting, defensive planting, door entry systems and the application of elements of security by design guidance & work required under the Fire Safety Order.
6.0 Human Rights Issues
6.1 Matter considered and no issues identified.
7.0 Reputation
7.1 Matter considered and no issues identified.
8.0 Consultations 8.1 Adur Consultative Forum (ACF) Consultation with, tenants and leaseholders to take place for individual major projects or programmes of work. Leaseholders as required under the Common hold & Leasehold Reform Act. Head of Adur Homes Financial Services – Service Accounting Legal Services Member for Customer Services
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 12 6 February 2014 309 9.0 Risk Assessment
9.1 Working and construction safety assessments are an integral part of project & programme management and are set out and defined for every contract for work or services. The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (FSO) requiring Fire Safety Risk assessments to common & shared areas.
10.0 Health & Safety Issues
10.1 Generally as for risk assessments above.
11.0 Procurement Strategy
11.1 The report and Procurement Strategy for Housing Capital contracts adheres to the Adur District Council Constitution, Section 4 procurement rules, and meets the Best Value principles, including competitive quotations or tender procedures where required.
12.0 Partnership Working
12.1 Matter considered, potential for partnership working with WSCC and their assigned partners Carillion, no further information available at this time and no other issues currently identified.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 12 6 February 2014 310 Appendix B: Gas infrastructure installation to the Test Road area, Sompting
1.0 Background
Scotia Gas Networks (SGN) operates two of the UK's largest gas networks through 74,000 km of gas mains and services. Scotland is served by Scotland Gas Networks and Southern Gas Networks encompasses the south and south-east of England. SGN supply natural gas to 5.8 million customers and are the second largest gas distribution company in the UK.
SGN have submitted fresh proposals for gas infrastructure work to the above IMD area of deprivation which falls into the Local Neighbourhood Improvement Area (LNIA) of Peverel Ward.
The complete project would encompass approximately 200 homes of mixed tenure which currently do not have access to gas supply at:
Test Road Sylvan Rd Avon Close Avon Court (Sh Accomm.) Hamble Road Maytree Close
Tenure of propertied in the area (subject to confirmation) 111 Adur Homes tenanted properties, 16 Adur Homes Leasehold properties An estimated 80 other households in the private sector including a number of RSL properties
2.0 Project Proposal
An initial proposal was put forward as part of an annual report to the Councils Joint Strategic Committee on 28th February 2013 and received strong support from Members & also the Chair of the ‘Adur Consultative Forum’ representing Council tenants & leaseholders views within the Adur district.
SGN have provided two quotes for Adur Homes tenanted properties only:
1. for the installation of a new gas main infrastructure and provision of individual supplies to external meter boxes.
The total value of the quotation is £291,643 However, a fuel poverty assisted connection allowance of 237,536 is applicable in this instance and therefore AHS only have to contribute £54,106.78 to provide a gas supplies to tenanted homes.
2. For the provision of new individual supplies and external meter boxes connected to the existing gas main. The value of the quotation is completely offset by the fuel poverty assisted connection allowance and therefore there will be no charge for gas supplies up to new meter boxes regardless of tenure.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 12 6 February 2014 311 SGN Quotes summarised as follows:
Gas Infrastructure New Gas Main From existing gas main Fully funded by fuel SGN charge to AHS poverty assisted for tenanted homes connection allowance £54,106.78 (No cost) No of Flats 37 10 No of Houses 32 2 No of Sheltered Accomm 30 0
Total 99 12
Approx. cost each £550 0
No of Leasehold properties 14 2 Expected contribution £550 0 Property Numbers subject to review prior to work
3.0 Financial Consideration Including slippage, £109,000 has been allowed in the 2014/15 budget (excluding salary costs). Given that the current SGN quote incurs a cost of approximately £54,000, the sum of £55,000 will remain in the budget which could fund approximately twelve Gas Central heating installations in 2014/15, with the remaining being funded from the 2015/16 Capital budget.
4.0 Commentary The proposal to install a gas infrastructure to the Test Road area provides the Council with an unusual and exciting opportunity to make a significant difference to the quality and cost of heating provision to a substantial number of properties in one of Adur's deprived neighbourhood's.
The project offers the prospect of levering in £237,536 external funding designed to help alleviate the effects of fuel poverty. It should be noted that your Officers have negotiated a commitment from SGN that their quote will remain valid if the Council approve the proposal before the end of February 2014.
In addition to the proposed gas infrastructure installation and central heating works to Adur Homes properties, your Officers are in consultation with colleagues at West Sussex County Council to investigate how the SESP can bring added value to the project by promoting increased energy efficiency awareness and behaviour among the residents in Test Road.
It should also be noted that initial discussions are underway to investigate how residents who are not Adur Homes tenants in the Test Road area can benefit from the gas infrastructure installation, potentially through the SESP. Clearly, this aspect of the project is outside of the scope of the Adur Homes Decent Homes Work Programme.
If the project is approved, owner occupiers will be able to benefit from SGN's Assisted Connections scheme. SGN indicate that a small contribution (possibly £600) towards the cost of that connection will still be required but have emphasised that they remain keen to support the installation of connections and gas heating to the private sector. Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 12 6 February 2014 312
Also, SGN wish to advise Committee that they are willing to enter further discussions with Adur and their energy efficiency partners on how best to utilise financial and commercial resources so as to maximise connections and the installation of in-house measures within the social and private sector.
Members will be briefed on how this element of the project progresses as part of future reports on the implementation of the SESP in Adur.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 12 6 February 2014 313 ADUR HOMES CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2014/15 APPENDIX C including approved slippage from the 2013/14 Capital Programme The following table is an assessment of the total budget & allocation of funds to individual categories. Once the 2013/14 Capital Investment Programme expenditue has been finalised further slippage may be allocated to the 2014/15 programme
The 2014/15 Capital programme budget bid 2,346,000 (approved budget) plus the agreed slippage from the 2013/14 programme 780,000 (approved slippage) (reported to JSC 7th November 2013) Total 3,126,000 (including salary costs estimated at 10%) Potential total 2014/15 budget 2,842,000 (excluding salary costs) 2014/15 Provisional figures 2014/15 Budget Including Salary costs Excluding A B A+B 10% salary AGREED Provisional costs BUDGET JSC allocation of Provisional Potential total App A 07/12/13 Cttee agreed total budget budget for ref code Categories 19/12/13 slippage work 4.1 18056 Adaptation for tenants with disabilities 250,000 250,000 227,000 4.2 18057 Flat roof recovering / replacement 120,000 120,000 109,000 4.3 18058 Re-pointing & structural works 50,000 70,000 120,000 109,000 4.4 18060 Decent Homes kitchen & bathroom refurb 1,100,000 550,000 1,650,000 1,500,000 4.5 18063 Environmental improvement 10,000 10,000 9,000 4.6 18064 Communal way refurbishment 30,000 10,000 40,000 36,000 4.7 18065 Pitch roofs recovering / replacement 25,000 25,000 23,000 4.8 18068 Test & upgrade of electrical circuits 10,000 10,000 9,000 4.9 18069 External joinery & window replacement 80,000 80,000 73,000 4.10 18070 Central heating installation 70,000 50,000 120,000 109,000 4.11 18072 Central heating replacements (boilers etc) 275,000 275,000 250,000 4.12 18073 Replacement/upgrade of door entry systems 25,000 25,000 23,000 4.13 18076 Upgrade / repair car park areas & garages 20,000 10,000 30,000 27,000 4.14 18077 Upgrade Sheltered Accom TV aerial (2015/16) 4.15 18078 Fishersgate:External & communal areas repair 10,000 10,000 9,000 4.16 18501 Insulation Upgrade & energy related improvements 10,000 10,000 9,000 4.17 18504 Replacement smoke detectors 5,000 5,000 5,000 4.18 18505 Fire Safety Order works 60,000 90,000 150,000 136,000 4.19 TBA Stock condition survey 90,000 90,000 82,000 4.20 TBA Lift refurbishment & major works 106,000 106,000 96,000 4.21 TBA Sh Accom - Community alarm system (2015/16) Capital budgets including salary allocation 2,346,000 780,000 3,126,000 2,842,000
excluding estimated salary allocation (10%) 2,133,000 709,000 2,842,000
314 Joint Strategic Committee 6 February 2014 Agenda Item 13
Ward: [Marine Ward]
Use of Compulsory Purchase Order relating to the Completion of Shoreham Beach Boardwalk
Report by the Executive Head of Planning, Regeneration and Wellbeing
1.0 Summary
1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek approval to a make a Compulsory Purchase Order 2013 (CPO) in relation to a strip of land located between two sections of boardwalk installed on Shoreham Beach. The land forms part of the title of a neighbouring property on Old Fort Road.
2.0 Background
2.1 Members will be aware that Shoreham Renaissance identified a number of key public realm enhancement opportunities. The Strategy sets out the overall aims for public realm enhancements including improving visual and physical access to the waterfront. An important aspect of the overall Strategy was to create an improved link between the Town Centre and the Beach.
2.2 As Members are aware, various sections of this link have been implemented including the pedestrianisation of East Street and the replacement footbridge. Funding has also been secured, including a contribution from the Shoreham Harbour Project, to undertake enhancement works to Ferry Road and the Lower Beach Road Car Park.
2.3 An extension of this overall strategy has been to enhance accessibility on to the Beach for the disabled and also for parents with pushchairs. As such it would help to provide a seamless disabled friendly access from the town centre across the Cyclepath Bridge, along Ferry Road and onto the Beach across a new boardwalk.
2.4 In 2011 the boardwalk was installed as indicated on the attached plan. The boardwalk was constructed by Adur District Council under permitted development rights granted to local authorities (under Part 12 of the General Permitted Development Order). During the course of the works an occupier of an adjoining property claimed that the land was not owned by the Council and work halted leaving a gap between two sections of the boardwalk.
2.5 Negotiations with the neighbouring property to purchase the land in question are ongoing and your Officers remain hopeful that this matter can be resolved without the use of a Compulsory Purchase Order. However, in view of the length of time that this matter has remained in some dispute, it is considered appropriate that authority to make an Order is considered as a fall back position if no agreement can Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 13 6 February 2014 315 be reached. At the time of writing this report an independent valuation of the land has been undertaken but this had not been provided to the Council by the other side’s Solicitors.
3.0 Justification for making the Order
3.1 The Committee is requested to consider the use of Compulsory Purchase Powers (CPO) to purchase the land and complete the boardwalk. Section 226(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is the appropriate enabling power on the basis that the Council is satisfied that the completion of the boardwalk would ‘contribute to the achievement of the promotion or improvement of the social wellbeing of its area’ (section 226 (1A)(b)).
3.2 In considering the use of a CPO in this instance due regard should be given to the advice in Circular 06/2004 and in particular the key factors that the Secretary of State would consider in confirming any order set out in Appendix A. These ‘tests’ are set out below together with your officers justification for pursuing a CPO in this case.
(i) Whether the purpose for which the land is being acquired fits in with the adopted planning framework for the area or, where no such up-to-date framework exists, with the Core Strategy and any relevant Area Action Plans in the process of preparation in full consultation with the community;
The improvement of the public realm and enhancing public access to open space and recreational facilities is a commitment set out in the Councils existing Development Plan and emerging Local Plan. As stated previously the provision of the boardwalk is an extension of the original vision to connect the town centre with the beach which was set out in the adopted Shoreham Renaissance Strategy in 2006. The adopted Local Plan 1996 includes a policy (AR11) which normally permits the development of public recreational facilities on or adjacent to public beaches subject to a number of criteria.
The emerging Local Plan, which has been the subject of a recent public consultation exercise, sets out the vision for how Adur will have changed by 2030. Of particular relevance is Vision 6 which states that,
‘Adur’s character and local distinctiveness (urban and rural, coastal and countryside) will have been maintained and enhanced through protection of its landscape, townscape, cultural heritage and biodiversity. Important views will have been protected. Much of Adur’s coastline will continue to be used for leisure and recreation, and public access to the river, harbour, countryside and coast will have been improved. Opportunities will be taken to capitalise on Adur’s location adjacent to the South Downs National Park. ‘
To help implement the vision a number of objectives are set out in the emerging plan. Of particular relevance is Objective 6:
‘Within the context of a Green Infrastructure strategy, to improve biodiversity, recreation and leisure facilities in order to provide an interlinked network of multifunctional open spaces - through and from urban areas (including Shoreham Harbour) to the coast and countryside, the provision of open
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 13 6 February 2014 316 space and greater opportunities for (and access to) informal recreational uses within the Local Green Gaps. Public access to the National Park and other countryside assets will be improved.‘
Whilst the specific provision of the boardwalk is not mentioned in the existing and emerging Local Plan the policies relating to Shoreham Harbour specifically refer to improvements to public areas and the beach environment and to support the comprehensive restoration of Shoreham Fort. Further specific guidance on access to open space and the advantages of extending the boardwalk to serve Shoreham Fort will be set out in the proposed Green Infrastructure Plan Supplementary Planning Document to follow on from the adoption of the new Local Plan.
The provision of the boardwalk and the need to close the gap also complies with a number of policies in the emerging Local Plan regarding the enhancement of biodiversity and Members will be aware of the duty placed on all authorities to protect, conserve and where possible enhance biodiversity in exercising all of its functions. Shoreham Beach is a Local Nature Reserve and Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) and the provision of the boardwalk has helped the protection of the vegetated shingle which is recognised as an important habitat for conservation both nationally and internationally. One of the main threats to this habitat has been by compaction and by concentrating footfall on the boardwalk this has helped to reduce the damage to this sensitive habitat. Since the boardwalk has been installed vegetation has re-populated areas adjacent to the decking and the County Ecologist has supported, in principle, extending the boardwalk to Shoreham Fort to help enhance biodiversity and conserve the vegetated shingle habitat.
(ii) The extent to which the proposed purpose will contribute to the achievement of the promotion or improvement of the economic, social or environmental wellbeing of the area;
The completed boardwalk would clearly have social and environmental wellbeing benefits. The provision of the boardwalk would provide an essential access route to the Beach for the disabled greatly enhancing their wellbeing. Increasing access for all residents to enjoy recreational areas of open space clearly helps improve health and wellbeing generally. Adur’s Access and Mobility Group strongly supports the Council in its desire to complete the walkway as do many other local groups including the Shoreham Beach Residents Association and Friends of Shoreham Beach. In addition a petition signed by 1183 local residents has lobbied for the Council to close the gap in the boardwalk.
The direct environmental benefits have been referred to above but there are also indirect benefits in terms of increasing access to the Nature Reserve in a managed way which would help increase the public’s understanding of the local habitat and importance of vegetated shingle. Completing the first phase of the boardwalk would also allow the boardwalk to be extended linking to Shoreham Fort and this would help raise the public’s awareness of this heritage restoration project.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 13 6 February 2014 317 The economic benefits are also important. Increased footfall would assist local shops in Ferry Road and providing improved access to the Fort would assist this project particularly if it helped future funding bids and helped to increase the number of volunteers.
(iii) The potential financial viability of the scheme for which the land is being acquired. A general indication of funding intentions, and of any commitments from third parties, will usually suffice to reassure the Secretary of State that there is a reasonable prospect that the scheme will proceed. The greater the uncertainty about the financial viability of the scheme, however, the more compelling the other grounds for undertaking the compulsory purchase will need to be. The timing of any available funding may also be important. For example, a strict time-limit on the availability of the necessary funding may be an argument put forward by the acquiring authority to justify proceeding with the order before finalising the details of the replacement scheme and/or the statutory planning position;
A Capital project exists to complete the boardwalk immediately and therefore this should not be any concern for the Secretary of State. The Council has already spent £87,267.00 and therefore the Secretary of State would also be urged to consider the public benefit given the significant financial commitment the Council has already made to the project.
(iv) Whether the purpose for which the acquiring authority is proposing to acquire the land could be achieved by any other means. This may include considering the appropriateness of any alternative proposals put forward by the owners of the land, or any other persons, for its re-use. It may also involve examining the suitability of any alternative locations for the purpose for which the land is being acquired.’
The Council has spent many months trying to negotiate with the landowner to complete the boardwalk either by buying or leasing the land. It has also actively pursued the option of extending the boardwalk to the south thereby bypassing the land in question. This option would be very costly and the Council’s Engineers question whether this would be feasible given the significant difference in levels and the movement in shingle caused by longshore drift.
3.3 It is clear that by acquiring this short stretch of land to complete the boardwalk would be in the public interest and would contribute to improving the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of the area. It is not considered that there is any reasonable alternative available to the Local Authority and therefore it is considered that a compelling case could be presented to the Secretary of State to confirm the order.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 13 6 February 2014 318 4.0 Legal
4.1 The Acquisition of Land Act 1981 sets out the procedure for compulsory purchase where an enabling power exists in other legislation.
4.2 Section 226 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that the Council, on being authorised to do so by the Secretary of State, have power to acquire compulsorily any land in their area.
(a) if the authority think that the acquisition will facilitate the carrying out of development, re-development or improvement on or in relation to the land, or
(b) which is required for a purpose which it is necessary to achieve in the interests of the proper planning of an area in which the land is situated.
Provided that the Council think that the development, re-development or improvement is likely to contribute to the achievement of any one or more of the following objects pursuant to Section 226(1A)b:
(a) the promotion or improvement of the economic well-being of their area;
(b) the promotion or improvement of the social well-being of their area;
(c) the promotion or improvement of the environmental well-being of their area.
4.3 The land to be acquired also needs to be treated as Special Category Land under section 19 ALA ‘81, as it is Open Space (i.e. “…used for the purposes of public recreation”). Accordingly, in addition to seeking to have the Order confirmed, the land will be subject to a special parliamentary procedure unless the Council are able to obtain a certificate from the Secretary of State under Section 19(1)(aa) that the land is being purchased to ensure its preservation or improve its management.
5.0 Human Rights Implications
5.1 The Human Rights act 1998 places direct obligation on public bodies such as the Council to demonstrate that the use of compulsory purchase powers is in the public interest and that the use of such powers is proportionate to the ends being pursued.
5.2 The Council must be sure that that the purpose for which it is making the Order sufficiently justifies interfering with the human rights of those with an interest in the land affected. It is acknowledged that, to a limited extent, the compulsory acquisition of the Land will amount to an interference with the human rights of those with an interest in the Land. These include rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) (which provides that every natural or legal person is entitled to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions) and Article 8 of the ECHR (which provides that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence).
5.3 There must be a balancing of the public interest and the individual’s rights and any interference with these rights must be necessary and proportionate. ”Proportionate” in this context means that the interference must be no more than is necessary to achieve the identified legitimate aim. In this instance officers are of the view that Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 13 6 February 2014 319 there is a compelling case in the public interest for the compulsory acquisition of the Land which outweighs the interference with the rights of those affected.
6.0 Financial implications
6. 1 The Council may be able to fund the legal costs from within existing resources. However, if there is a need for a Public Inquiry then resources would need to be found to fund the work and there would be a certain level of compensation for the landowner if the Order is confirmed. The level of compensation is unlikely to be significant given the area of land involved and its current use.
6. 2 It is proposed at this stage that up to £25,000 be earmarked from the Capacity Issues Reserve to fund this work. However, the reserves are only to be released in consultation with the Cabinet Member of Resources if they are needed.
7.0 Recommendation
7.1 It is recommended that the Committee resolve:-:
i) That the District Council of Adur (Shoreham Beach Boardwalk) Compulsory Purchase Order 2013 be made under Section 226(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, for the acquisition of the interests in land within the area shown edged red on the plan attached at Appendix I, the Council being of the view that the proposed acquisition will:
a) facilitate the completion of the section of boardwalk on land to the south of Old Fort Road, and,
b) contribute to the promotion or improvement of the economic, social or environmental well-being of the District, and c) ensure its preservation or improve its management.
ii) That unless negotiations are completed hase the land within a reasonable timeframe, the Solicitor to the Council be authorised on behalf of the District Council to:-
a) take all necessary steps as soon as is reasonably practicable to secure the making, confirmation and implementation of the Order including the publication and service of all notices and the presentation of the Council’s case at any Public Inquiry;
b) acquire interests in land and new rights within the Order either by agreement or compulsorily, including prior to the making of an Order;
c) approve agreements with the landowner setting out the terms of any withdrawal of objections to the Order including if appropriate, seeking exclusion of land or new rights from the Order.
iii) Agree to release up to £25,000 from Adur District Council’s capacity issues reserve in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Resources.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 13 6 February 2014 320 Local Government Act 1972 Background Papers:
Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Circular 06/04: Compulsory Purchase and the Crichel Down Rules. Adur Local Plan 1996 Consultation Draft of the Adur Local Plan 2013
Contact Officer:
James Appleton Executive Head of Planning, Regeneration and Wellbeing Portland House, Richmond Road, Worthing 01903 221333 [email protected]
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 13 6 February 2014 321 Schedule of Other Matters
1.0 Council Priority
1.1 Develop a co-ordinated approach to providing sport, leisure, recreational and cultural activities – the provision of an improved access would provide an opportunity to enhance open space within the District.
1.2 Target inequalities and deprivation and help people to improve their quality of life – opportunity to enhance recreation provision with an area of deprivation.
2.0 Specific Action Plans
2.1 Matter considered and no issues identified.
3.0 Sustainability Issues
3.1 Matter considered and no issues identified.
4.0 Equality Issues
4.1 Matter considered and no issues identified.
5.0 Community Safety Issues (Section 17)
5.1 Matter considered and no issues identified.
6.0 Human Rights Issues
6.1 Matter addressed in the report.
7.0 Reputation
7.1 Whilst, there are local concerns by some residents adjacent to the boardwalk, it is considered that the wider benefits to the local community would justify acquiring the land in the public interest. Completing the Boardwalk would enhance the Council’s reputation.
8.0 Consultations
8.1 Consultation with Members and Officers.
9.0 Risk Assessment
9.1 There is a risk of compensation although it is not considered that this would be significant in view of the size and use of the land involved.
10.0 Health & Safety Issues
10.1 Matter considered and no issues identified.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 13 6 February 2014 322 11.0 Procurement Strategy
11.1 Matter considered and no issues identified.
12.0 Partnership Working
12.1 Matter considered and no issues identified.
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 13 6 February 2014 323 APPENDIX I
Joint Strategic Committee Agenda item: 13 6 February 2014 324